Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

LLOYDS TSB BILL [Lords](By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time on Thursday 11 June.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

The Minister was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions — Food Safety

Mrs. Anne Campbell: What steps he is taking to improve food safety. [42720]

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Dr. John Cunningham): We are setting up what will be a powerful, effective and independent Food Standards Agency operating across the whole food chain, clearly focused on protecting consumers. In the meantime, I have already ensured that public health is our first consideration in matters of food safety.

Mrs. Campbell: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that, after 18 years of Tory Government and a disastrous record on food safety, there is still widespread concern and anxiety about food safety, and especially about genetically modified food? Does he agree that it is important that we give consumers real choice in the consumption of such foods, and that labelling genetically modified foods would be an important step forward in giving consumers that choice? What progress has my right hon. Friend been able to make in persuading other countries to agree with us on that important issue?

Dr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend is right to say that there is still a high level of public concern about food safety. We must continue to be vigilant in protecting the public and in bringing to them the best available scientific advice on those matters. On genetically modified food, the British presidency recently negotiated an agreement in the Agriculture Council that will ensure that food is clearly labelled. The labels will say either that food contains a genetically modified product or that it does not. There will therefore be absolutely no doubt in consumers' minds. I was very pleased to be able to negotiate that outcome in the Agriculture Council.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: In looking at the issue of food safety, will the Minister consider, too, the issue of vitamin safety—and, in particular, the safety of vitamin B6? The United States Government allow over-the-counter sales of 100 mg of vitamin B6, whereas the Government are proposing to restrict such sales to 50 mg. The US is the toughest regulatory authority to the world. Is not the British restriction therefore simply another case of the Government acting as nanny state and knowing better than their subjects?

Dr. Cunningham: To the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's assertion, the answer is no, it is not. Neither is it the case, as he asserts, that the United States necessarily employs the toughest regulations. The United States allows, for example, hormone growth promoters, which are banned in the European Union. So the hon. Gentleman is wrong on that point, too. We are still consulting and considering responses to the work on B6 being undertaken by my hon. Friend the Minister of State.

Mr. Derek Wyatt: Will the Minister bear in mind the fact that the farmers in my constituency reckon that it costs them 38p a pound to raise lamb, which they can sell at only 43p a pound at Ashford? They see lamb on sale at Sainsburys, Tesco or Asda at £2.78 a pound. Is there a chance that, within the Foods Standards Agency, we could consider having a regulator for supermarkets?

Dr. Cunningham: The answer to that is no.

Oral Answers to Questions — Farming Incomes

Mr. Desmond Swayne: If he will make a statement on his policy in respect of the level of farming incomes. [42721]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): The Government are working to create the conditions that will enable farmers to develop their businesses and maximise their income by pressing for market-oriented reform of the common agricultural policy.

Mr. Swayne: I should be very interested to know precisely what those conditions are. The fact is that farming incomes have fallen by well over 40 per cent. Farmers have been hit again today, by a sixth rise in interest rates. Those who can no longer afford farming and want to get out have been devastated by the abolition of retirement relief on capital gains. Meanwhile—all this time—the Chancellor of the Exchequer is building up a war chest for the next general election. Will the Minister ask for some of that money now, while we still have a farming industry?

Mr. Morley: The Government have helped the hardest-hit sections of the industry with £85 million of aid for the sheep and suckler sector and by absorbing £70 million of start-up costs. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might ponder the enormous overspend on BSE aid to renderers by the previous Conservative Administration. Some of that money could have gone to farmers.

Mr. Eric Martlew: May I bring my hon. Friend back to a point that I made in a recent debate about the damage done on the hills by overstocking? The only way for hill farmers to increase their income is by increasing the number of sheep and cattle on the land, which is doing serious damage. Is my hon. Friend considering ways of compensating those farmers to reduce the number of animals on the hills?

Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend is right that overstocking and overgrazing are serious problems in some hill areas. We need to address that as part of the structural changes and negotiations for Agenda 2000 and potential reform of hill livestock compensatory allowances.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Has the Minister seen the well-researched and well-documented evidence that appeared recently in Farmers' Weekly of the number of farming households that have to claim family credit, income support and other social security benefits? Is that not a sad indictment of the present plight of many in the farming community? Given that the Government have obstinately refused since last May to access the European funds that could be available, will the Minister take the opportunity to promise to set up an interdepartmental analysis of whether withholding that money, when set against the money being claimed from the Department of Social Security, will cost the British taxpayer—as well as the farmers, their families and their communities—more in the long term than help is received in the short term?

Mr. Morley: We are not withholding compensation. We have accessed nearly all the available resources for the beef and sheep sector. Farming incomes have been under pressure in the past year, but that agrimonetary compensation would not benefit the pig, horticultural or poultry sector. Some sections of the industry have had a difficult time, but others have successfully targeted their customers, broadened their customer base and diversified.

Mr. Huw Edwards: Does my hon. Friend appreciate the dismay of farmers in my constituency, who have seen farming incomes decline while a supermarket chain such as Tesco claims that it makes no money on selling meat? Will he join me in commending the investigation by the Welsh Affairs Committee and its recommendation that the matter should be referred to the Office of Fair Trading?

Mr. Morley: I accept that there is concern in the agricultural sector about certain aspects of the role of retailers. However, retailers have also played a positive role in developing markets and driving up standards.

Mr. Michael Jack: The answers that the Minister has given so far on this serious issue of falling farm incomes—particularly in the light of the Government's failed inflation policy, which has now led to a sixth increase in interest rates—are nothing short of complacent. Does he accept that today's announcement on interest rates will increase borrowing costs for farmers and lead to further reductions in farm incomes? Will he come clean on whether he has sorted out the level of arable area payments and livestock payments in the

agrimonetary arrangements—or is he content for another £400 million disappear from farming at the end of the year?

Mr. Morley: Surveys show that, because of three exceptionally good years of farm income, almost 50 per cent. of farmers have no borrowing with the banks. The right hon. Gentleman should also be aware that the UK taxpayer has to find 71p of every pound of agrimonetary compensation. I presume that that is why the Conservative Government voted against the setting up of the agrimonetary scheme.

Oral Answers to Questions — Common Agricultural Policy

Dr. Rudi Vis: If he will make a statement on the Agenda 2000 proposals on reforming the common agricultural policy. [42722]

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Dr. John Cunningham): The Commission's proposals broadly reflect the direction of reform that the Government have advocated, but, in some respects, they are insufficiently radical or discriminate against United Kingdom interests, and, therefore, need changing accordingly.

Dr. Vis: I thank my right hon. Friend for that rather optimistic answer. It is my understanding that the Agriculture Council is rather protectionist. Why has he been relatively successful and why has such progress been made? Is it to do with the Government's more thoughtful attitude to the single currency, as compared with that of the Conservative party?

Dr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend is right. We were able to secure unanimous agreement to interim conclusions on the consideration of Agenda 2000 at the Agriculture Council in May. Those conclusions will go to the Cardiff European summit later this month and be considered by the Heads of Government. The conclusions contain almost all the major points of emphasis from the United Kingdom point of view. My hon. Friend mentioned the Conservative party's position on the single currency: as it meanders aimlessly further to the right and further into a hopelessly anti-European stance, that party abandons not only the interests of the United Kingdom in general but of farmers in particular.

Sir Michael Spicer: If, as part of reform of the common agricultural policy, the Government return to some efficiency payment system, will they ensure that they do so on a national basis so that we support British farmers and not farmers in foreign countries?

Dr. Cunningham: If the hon. Gentleman is really asking whether we will oppose proposals that may take financial support from British farmers and reallocate them to the benefit of farmers in other European member states, the answer is yes, we oppose any such proposal.

Oral Answers to Questions — Cattle Traceability Scheme

Mr. Don Touhig: If he will make a statement on progress of the cattle traceability scheme. [42723]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): We are making good progress in implementing the cattle tracing system, and we are on course to launch it and go live on Monday 28 September.

Mr. Touhig: I thank my hon. Friend for that information; progress in setting up the British cattle movement service is most welcome. Will he assure the House that reports that the system will be so bureaucratic as to require farmers to register the twice-daily movement of cows to the milking parlour are completely false?

Mr. Rooker: The answer to my hon. Friend's question is yes. Reports in one of the Sunday newspapers last week were wholly inaccurate; farmers will not be required to record those daily movements. The cattle movement service is, I admit, a complex operation, but we are very confident that we will be able to make it work and track the estimated 20 million cattle movements a year. That figure compares to, say, the 16 million Visa cards in this country. We shall also issue 3 million cattle passports every year, which is double the number of new pension and child benefit books issued by the Department of Social Security.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Notwithstanding the Minister's statement in the House on 21 May, livestock producers in the west country are still unclear—as are we all—about what will happen to the over-30-months scheme once there is a date-based scheme. Surely the Minister of State understands that beef finishers need to know now whether they will be able to market animals in February next year which are reaching 30 months of age. They are already having to plan their food regimes for the summer and the autumn. Given the continued failure of the Minister to visit the west country to answer questions personally, will the Minister of State take this opportunity to answer them clearly and without equivocation?

Mr. Rooker: I will do my best, although the hon. Gentleman's questions do not relate to the question on the Order Paper. The cattle-tracing system that will go live in September is not connected to the date-based scheme; the two are quite separate and must not be linked—otherwise, success of the date-based scheme will be more difficult to achieve. We have said repeatedly in the House that, for the foreseeable future, the over-30-months scheme will remain in operation. It will definitely remain in operation as long as the advice from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee is such that it is required to be in operation.

Oral Answers to Questions — Beef Cull

Mrs. Alice Mahon: If he will make a statement on the progress of the selective beef cull. [42725]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): The selective cull is progressing very well. We have now slaughtered over 71,000 animals in the United Kingdom. The cull of animals in Northern Ireland is already complete.

Mrs. Mahon: That progress is good news, but does my hon. Friend agree that nothing better illustrates the 18 years of Tory misrule than the BSE scandal, and that, although the Tories have now walked away from it, the rest of the country will pay a heavy price for it in future?

Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend is right. The cost to the taxpayer of the selective cull—that is, of the 71,000 animals slaughtered so far—is more than £100 million. We have also slaughtered 2.25 million cattle under the over-30-months scheme, and 1.25 million calves under the calf processing aid scheme, otherwise known as the Herod scheme—all healthy animals—in addition to the 172,000 cattle identified as having BSE. It is a financial disaster.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Given the serious and sad nature of the scheme, does the Minister agree that it has been effectively carried out? Will he pay tribute to the work that is being done under the scheme, and will he also send a message of good will to the world congress of the Sussex Cattle Society, which opens next week at the Ardingly showground? Does he agree that Sussex cattle, like all the other native breeds, have a heroic place in British agriculture?

Mr. Rooker: Yes, I am happy to do that. I am also happy to pay tribute to the work involved in the selective cull. It is extremely difficult and complex, as some Opposition Members will appreciate, simply because we are dealing with animals which, by definition, are several years old and will never enter the food chain—any of those that are not found, that is. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, farm records were not as good as they are now, but we estimate that we are on course for finishing the selective cull this autumn.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the Minister tell the House when he expects the National Audit Office report of its investigation into the costs of the cull to be published? Did he hear, on the "Today" programme just before the Whit recess, the former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), admit that, without going out to tender, excess sums of public money had been spent on the cull, and that the large rendering companies and some large abattoirs had profited at the expense of farmers and small abattoirs? Can he confirm that that is the case, and can he tell us when the NAO report will be available?

Mr. Rooker: Not only can I not confirm any of that, I cannot even comment on it. None of the papers that the NAO has looked at are available to my right hon. Friend or me; they date from the previous Administration. I do not know when the NAO will publish its report; that is not a matter on which it would consult the Government. However, we all await the report with great interest.

Mr. William Thompson: I welcome the fact that the cull is now complete in Northern Ireland.


Will the Minister accept the thanks and appreciation of the farmers of Northern Ireland now that the beef ban has been lifted there? May I add that we also greatly appreciate the £2 million that has been given to help with marketing, to get the beef back into the foreign countries? Thank you very much.

Mr. Rooker: I am happy to say, for once in a while, thank you for a thank you.

Oral Answers to Questions — Farmers (Paperwork)

Mr. Michael Fabricant: If he will introduce an audit of the volume of forms which need to be completed by farmers. [42727]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): We already have systems in place to keep the number of forms that farmers need to complete to the minimum consistent with our obligations to observe legislative requirements and to safeguard health and public funds.

Mr. Fabricant: I thank the Minister for that answer, but I think farmers will find it rather complacent, especially as the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), admitted a week or two ago that farm incomes have fallen by 43 per cent. over the past year, and the increase in interest rates will mean a further drop in incomes as the green pound rises. What will the Minister actually do to reduce the burden of form filling by farmers who are already hard-pressed enough?

Mr. Morley: I can tell the hon. Gentleman what we have actually done: we have introduced changes that have so far saved the equivalent of £5.4 million in the reduction in time spent filling in forms. A further £1.1 million in savings is to be found in the coming year, by rationalising forms, pre-printing names and addresses, introducing bar codes and trying to minimise the costs and the burdens for farmers.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Am I right in believing that most of the forms that farmers fill in were introduced by the previous Administration? Does my hon. Friend agree that no one in the farming community minds filling in forms if they are for a purpose, which surely must be to help the small and medium farmers to make a good living? The more encouragement they receive to specialise in niche markets such as organic farming, the better, as that is the way forward.

Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend is right. It is also the case that most of the forms are related to European Union subsidy schemes.

Mr. James Paice: Will the Minister now accept that farmers are not concerned only about more subsidy—or even any subsidy? More than anything else, they want to believe that they are being treated fairly in comparison with producers from all the other countries from which we import food. Will the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that the Ministry will set up a study to examine the application and enforcement of rules and regulations placed on British farmers and on

farmers in the countries from which we import food, so that British producers can be sure that the hygiene, animal welfare, pesticide and other regulations that affect them are being applied elsewhere, and the British consumer can know that, if she buys imported food, it is being reared or produced to the same standards as apply in Britain?

Mr. Morley: It is important that European rules are applied equally and fairly across all member states. When the industry brings us complaints, we have on occasion asked it to provide information on what it regards as a deficiency in the uniformity of enforcement. The Government will not hesitate to take action in such matters. For example, under Britain's presidency, we have brought forward new measures in the Fisheries Council to improve cross-European enforcement to ensure that the same standards are applied in all member states and that there can be confidence in all countries.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: What submissions did the Minister or his colleagues make on the new integrated administration and control system form and its ridiculous notion of having to remove outcrops from acreage, which is a rather time-consuming and stupid measure?

Mr. Morley: We have considered the IACS form, which is an example in which there has been some simplification, both in pre-printing and in the fact that we are not asking farmers to resubmit full details if there has been no change in the acreage. We are always willing to consider representations on future improvements and the structure of forms—we shall obviously be pleased to look at any such representations from the hon. Gentleman or from farming organisations.

Oral Answers to Questions — Exchange Rate (Ancillary Services)

Mrs. Caroline Spelman: What assessment he has made of the impact of the level of the pound on the ancillary services in agriculture. [42728]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): We fully recognise and understand the concerns of those industries providing ancillary services in the agricultural sector about the recent level of the sterling exchange rate.

Mrs. Spelman: The chamber of commerce in Hereford and Worcester estimates that for every job in agriculture there are 15 in ancillary industries, so does the Minister accept that today's announcement of an increase in interest rates is a bitter blow not only for agriculture but for the wide range of industries that serve it?

Mr. Morley: There is no denying that an increase in interest rates is bad news for many sectors, particularly those involved in manufacturing and export. However, we should remember that an increase in inflation or a challenge to the strength and well-managed stewardship of the economy would be even worse news. The economy is being managed for the long term, not—as happened under the previous Administration—for the short term.

Mr. Ben Bradshaw: Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the dramatic fall in sterling since the


successful launch of the euro—in stark contrast to the predictions of most Conservative Members—which has been welcomed across the whole of the agricultural industry? Does he agree that we can achieve a realistic and stable exchange rate only by being in the euro, which is why the National Farmers Union and now the Country Landowners Association support the Government's policy on the single currency?

Mr. Morley: It is true that there has been a welcome decline in the pound in recent months. In relation to Opposition Members' criticism, membership of the euro is one of the ways to stop the swings in currency exchanges which damage many sectors of industry, including agriculture. Unlike the Conservative party, we judge membership of the euro by only one criterion—whether it is in the best interests of our country and not whether or not it should be ruled out for purely ideological reasons.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: When agriculture is doing well, the whole rural community is doing well—which is exactly the opposite of the present situation, as there has been a 43 per cent. drop in farming incomes. Is the Minister aware of the problems facing agricultural ancillary industries—the feed merchants, the markets, the machinery merchants and the haulage industry, to name a few? What does he propose to do about them?

Mr. Morley: First, it should be remembered that two thirds of the rise in the level of the pound took place under the previous Government. Secondly, agriculture and ancillary industries have been hit—no one is denying that. However, it is worth pointing out that rural unemployment has fallen by 4 per cent. in the past year.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Does my hon. Friend recall that interest rates were nearly 15 per cent. under the Tories? Does he also recall that when he and I spoke from the Opposition Front Bench on agriculture in the early 1990s, we saw a steady stream of farmers complaining about very high interest rates under the Tories—rates which are double those of today?

Mr. Morley: I do recall that, and I am confident that the management of the economy under the Government is in the best long-term interests of agriculture and industry in general.

Oral Answers to Questions — Beef on the Bone

Mr. Laurence Robertson: If he will review the ban on the sale of beef on the bone. [42729]

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Dr. John Cunningham): The Beef Bones Regulations 1997 are being kept under review, as is the case with all BSE-related control measures. Any future decision will be taken in the light of scientific developments and progress with the eradication of BSE.

Mr. Robertson: Does the Minister not think it rather odd that in Northern Ireland beef can now be exported, but beef on the bone cannot be eaten?

Dr. Cunningham: It is not odd at all because it cannot be exported on the bone.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Could there be a generous word to mine host at Carfraemill and the sheriff who so dramatically acquitted him?

Dr. Cunningham: Since the case to which my hon. Friend refers is sub judice and the subject of an appeal, I shall not comment one way or the other.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: If, however, the law is found to be defective in Scotland, can the Minister guarantee that any English prosecutions will be withdrawn?

Dr. Cunningham: No, because the law in Scotland does not affect the law in England, and this case has no relevance to England.

Oral Answers to Questions — Animal Feed (Antibiotics)

Mr. Gordon Prentice: What steps he is taking to prevent the use of low-level antibiotics in animal feed as a prophylactic. [42730]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): Low-level antibiotics are simply not authorised for prophylactic or preventive use in animal feeds. However, certain low-level antibiotics are authorised as growth promoters, but only under the terms of EC directive 70/524.

Mr. Prentice: The Government moved swiftly last month on the Agriculture Committee's recommendations of 22 April. However, we are very close to witnessing some kind of biological Armageddon—and that is not overstating the issue. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come off it."] Well, perhaps it is overstating the issue. But, seriously, what can we do to persuade farmers to return to more traditional methods of animal husbandry? People are sick to death of all the food scares, of the fact that we seem to have been poisoned year after year and of the fact that farmers are congenitally incapable of producing food that is safe to eat.

Mr. Rooker: For the record, the Government did not move quickly after receiving the Agriculture Committee's report. We are still considering our response. A week earlier, the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology reported on antibiotics for human beings and included a chapter on animals. That will also be carefully considered.
We are taking a range of measures to encourage farmers to produce food without lots of chemicals. We have a rigorous surveillance programme for pesticide and veterinary medicine residues. We shall publish brand names when people exceed limits in future and we are giving more aid to organic farmers.

Mr. David Maclean: Will the Minister accept from me, as someone who perhaps has a slightly longer memory of farming practices than the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), that there were no good old days of animal husbandry before some of today's wonderful medicines were developed? The matter of concern is not medicines, but how they are used. If today's agriculture did not have access to a range of antibiotics and other medicines developed by the Central Veterinary Laboratory at Weybridge, the standard of animal welfare would not be the highest in the world, which it is. Will the Minister ensure that all farmers are given sufficient guidance to ensure that medicines are not inappropriately used and that there are no high residues in food to cause unnecessary concern?

Mr. Rooker: I am happy to pay tribute to the work of the Central Veterinary Laboratory at Weybridge, which is a world-class organisation. Last year, it examined 34,000 samples of residues in meat, fish and honey. Only 0.01 per cent. of samples proved to be over the limit, which is a tiny proportion. In future, we will even publish brand names. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right that there never was a golden age, and it is a mistake to assume that there was.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: The Minister will be aware of the House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee's report on antibiotic resistance and of the alarming rise in methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus caused by it. The agriculture industry has rarely taken responsibility for that, but it is an urgent problem. Should not the Food Standards Agency, which is responsible to the Department of Health, investigate that problem in detail?

Mr. Rooker: Yes, except that the Food Standards Agency will not be up and running until the second half of next year—and we are not waiting for that. The independent Veterinary Products Committee, which advises the Government, is to hold on 18 June a meeting on antibiotics in animal feedstuffs, and we await a report later this year from a sub-committee of the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food.

Oral Answers to Questions — Common Agricultural Policy

Mr. Tim Boswell: What steps he is taking to ensure that the revised common agricultural policy takes account of the opportunities for novel
crops. [42731]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): In recent Brussels discussions, the Government have argued that the common agricultural policy should take full account of the opportunities for novel crops, which we strongly support.

Mr. Boswell: Will the Minister bear in mind the importance of ensuring that novel crops for foods and animal feeds are treated equally by CAP regimes and are not discriminated against if they have agronomic or technical advantages? Will he also bear in mind the importance of new developments in biomass production

and non-food crops, which can benefit farmers with difficult land and which may increase farm incomes and help to reduce global warming?

Mr. Morley: I accept those points. The first biomass power station will open shortly and will encourage development of the crop involved. How the CAP treats crops is a serious point as, under the existing regime, there is a penalty for farmers who want to develop novel crops. We want that to be rectified.

Ms Joan Walley: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to this week's report from the first citizens panel on food and biotechnology, which was horrified that new crops had been introduced without the Government doing anything to stop them? When considering CAP reform, will my hon. Friend put sustainability at the heart of agriculture policy, particularly for genetically modified food?

Mr. Morley: Yes. Two issues are involved first, novel crops, such as biomass, which are generally welcomed, and, secondly, genetically modified organisms. It is important that any crop of that sort is exposed to the proper procedures. We are ensuring that that happens and that there is proper scientific evaluation of any such crop.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the Minister agree that the Central Science Laboratory has a role to play in developing novel crops? Will he make a statement on the laboratory's future and, in particular, where it will be located?

Mr. Morley: That announcement has been made by my right hon. Friend the Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions — Bees

Mr. Nigel Beard: What steps are being taken to prevent the spread of the Varroa Jacobsoni mite into British bee colonies. [42732]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): A statutory infected area was declared in 1992 to control the spread of varroosis. Movements in and out of the affected area are possible only under licence and imports of bees from third countries are restricted.

Mr. Beard: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he also recognise that the licensing of only one treatment for varroa—Bayverol—is likely to lead to immunity gathering in the mites that spread it? If that happens, the bee population of Britain could decline sharply, with serious repercussions for food growing and agriculture. Will he consider licensing at least two treatments so that they can be used alternately, therefore avoiding immunity gathering and reducing the threat of a serious plague in the bee population of the British isles?

Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend refers to the bee population. I can inform the House that I had no idea about its size. Every hon. Member has beekeepers in their constituency, I think, to judge from the amount of representation that has been made on the matter. The population is actually 10 billion, and it produces some


4,000 tonnes of honey. My hon. Friend raises an important point. In many ways, we are governed by our membership of the European Union. Authorising veterinary products simply cannot be done on the nod by one state alone. I am well aware that some beekeepers use other preparations. By and large, as long as they do not end up as residues in the food, they are acceptable. Nevertheless, we are seeking information about some of them.

Mr. James Gray: The Minister came close to admitting that the reason for one product being used is some Eurocrat's recent definition of bees as food-producing animals. Will he now admit that that is unfair European interference in the traditional British way of life and will he make representations to the European Union to turn round that definition and, by that means, allow British beekeepers to return to using tar and icing sugar, which are perfectly good ways to deal with Varroa Jacobsoni?

Mr. Rooker: The Department spends a considerable amount of money to ensure that we have a viable United Kingdom honey programme.

Oral Answers to Questions — Cattle Traceability Scheme

Mr. Ian Stewart: What steps he has taken to inform other EU Agriculture Ministers of progress on British cattle tracing systems. [42733]

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Dr. John Cunningham): I demonstrated the cattle tracing system to other EU Agriculture Ministers during the informal Agriculture Council in Newcastle upon Tyne on 11 May. I am glad to report to the House that they were impressed.

Mr. Stewart: I note that the informal Council of Agriculture Ministers took place in Newcastle upon Tyne and believe that it has been reported as being highly successful. My right hon. Friend has to be congratulated on that. I am also aware that he dedicated a large part of that event to demonstrating the traceability of British cattle from birth to supermarket shelf. Does he agree that that shows that British beef is safe to export anywhere in the world?

Dr. Cunningham: Yes, it does. My hon. Friend is right to emphasise that, as I did again yesterday when addressing the Agriculture Committee of the European Parliament.

Mr. Ian Bruce: The right hon. Gentleman and his predecessors have told EU Agriculture Ministers in the past what we were doing to eradicate BSE. Did he get assurances from his European Union colleagues that once the traceability system and the other measures that have been taken are working, they will immediately allow us to export British beef?

Dr. Cunningham: I understand the hon. Gentleman's wish to be constructive, but the answer is no, because having the Workington centre operational is not a

condition for lifting the ban. We expect a proposal from the Commission before the operational date of 28 September.

Oral Answers to Questions — Genetically Modified Foods

Ms Gisela Stuart: What safeguards are in place to ensure that consumers have adequate labelling and information on genetically modified foods. [42734]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): European Community regulations require all foods containing genetically modified materials to be clearly labelled. In addition, we have taken a number of initiatives to ensure that consumers have information about these types of food.

Ms Stuart: I thank the Minister for that response. I understand that there are already several controls in place. Can he assure me that they are strictly monitored and updated in the light of new technology?

Mr. Rooker: Yes. None of the crops involving genetic modification can be planted unless they are approved by the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, which reports to the Department of the Environment, not to the Ministry of Agriculture. On food production, the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes has to examine and license every product that comes on to the market. As my right hon. Friend the Minister said earlier, we have taken steps with our European partners in the past few days to ensure that labelling will be more precise than ever contemplated by our predecessors.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL

The Attorney-General was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions — Customs and Excise (Prosecutions)

Mr. John Burnett: What guidelines he has given to HM Customs and Excise as to when they should seek his consent before initiating a prosecution. [42751]

The Attorney-General (Mr. John Morris): The circumstances in which Her Majesty's Customs and Excise is required to seek my consent before initiating prosecutions are prescribed by the statutes that create the offences. I also exercise superintendence over prosecutions relating to defence exports and sanction breaches on a non-statutory basis. A paper outlining those arrangements was placed in the Library by my predecessor on 17 June 1996.

Mr. Burnett: I am grateful to the Attorney-General. I understand that, in Scotland, Customs and Excise cases are run under the aegis of the Lord Advocate. Has the Attorney-General considered that such cases in England and Wales should be run under his aegis?

The Attorney-General: As Attorney-General for England and Wales, my responsibility is confined to England and Wales. I have another responsibility as regards Northern Ireland. That is the extent of my responsibilities.

Mr. David Lock: Will my right hon. and learned Friend explain the circumstances in which his non-statutory supervision of Customs and Excise comes into effect and how it works in practice?

The Attorney-General: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Under the supervision arrangements, I am answerable to the House for action taken by Customs and Excise on individual prosecutions relating to defence exports and sanction infringements, other than those involving strict liability. Treasury Ministers continue to be answerable for general enforcement and prosecution policy, and remain responsible for investigation of such offences. Under the arrangements for consultation, the Commissioners of Customs and Excise will consult me in all prosecutions of defence export offences where intention is an ingredient of the offence and will keep me generally informed of activity in this area. I am also consulted by the commissioners on any proposals to change prosecuting policy. That may meet some of the fears of the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett).

Miss Anne McIntosh: Can the Attorney-General help me resolve a case involving two constituents of mine, whose son was tragically killed in a collision with a vehicle driven by a Customs and Excise driver who, I understand, was involved in a high-speed chase during an investigation? Because of complications under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976, the fatal accident inquiry has been delayed and the case has not reached a conclusion. Can he use his good offices to expedite its conclusion?

The Attorney-General: If the hon. Lady gives me the name and the details, I shall forward them to the appropriate agency.

Oral Answers to Questions — Crown Prosecution Service

Mr. Barry Sheerman: What steps he is taking to ensure that the Crown Prosecution Service adopts common standards across England and Wales. [42753]

The Attorney-General: The CPS issues guidance to staff to facilitate the consistent application of national standards on prosecution decisions, the consistent application of charging standards agreed with the police and agreed standards for victim and witness care.

Mr. Sheerman: Why is it that in some parts of England and Wales prosecutions take place that criminalise children who have been caught soliciting, and children exploited in that way are given a criminal record, whereas in other parts of the country the CPS and the police do not take any action, but do what they should do and go for the evil people who manipulate those children?

The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend has a long-standing interest in home affairs generally and in this issue in particular, which he has raised in the House from time to time. I appreciate his continued concern.
I should explain that prostitution is not in itself a criminal offence; loitering or soliciting for the purposes of prostitution is a criminal offence. The overriding principle in cases involving young people is that they should be protected from harm. In such cases, the public interest may require the prosecution of a young person who persistently and voluntarily returns to prostitution; but each case is considered on its merits. If there is any particular divergence apart from that, or if my hon. Friend draws my attention to a particular case, I shall refer the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Mr. Edward Gamier: The Attorney-General will know that the Glidewell report on the CPS referred to the widespread, but inaccurate, perception throughout England and Wales that the CPS constantly downgrades criminal charges and it said that a further study is required, but the CPS has already had to cope with a year's uncertainty waiting for the report. What does the right hon. and learned Gentleman intend to do about that recommendation and how much would a further study cost?

The Attorney-General: As the hon. and learned Gentleman, whom I welcome to the Opposition Front Bench in his new capacity, knows, the Government have accepted the broad thrust of Glidewell, which contains 75 recommendations in all. Unhappily, the CPS and Court Service statistics and, in some instances, the Home Office statistics, do not correlate, so further work is needed to get the basis of concern right. Sir Iain and his colleagues expressed concern and advocated further study.
Sir Iain noted that there were variations in discontinuances as between different offences. The Government as a whole, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I must consider how we approach the matter. We have invited anyone concerned to make representations by 31 July and I invite the hon. and learned Gentleman and the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) to do so. We shall take all the representations into account when determining the best means of proceeding, because there is a great deal of concern about the matter.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell me whether, as part of the reorganisation following the Glidewell report, it will be possible for judges who are concerned about particular aspects of cases that come before them automatically to have the right to report that information, over the head of the CPS, to Ministers?

The Attorney-General: The appointment of judges is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor and I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to his attention. Judges have always been forthright in bringing into the public domain their criticism and concern about cases, from the highest to the lowest.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: What percentage of cases referred to the Crown Prosecution Service by the police resulted in (a) prosecutions and (b) convictions in the last year. [42754]

The Attorney-General: During the year ending March 1998, the Crown Prosecution Service dealt with cases in respect of 1,354,208 defendants in the magistrates courts. It proceeded with 1,097,147 of those cases, amounting to 81 per cent. of the total. Convictions for the same period totalled 953,753 defendants, representing 98.1 per cent. of all cases proceeding to a hearing.
In the Crown court, proceedings were completed in respect of 105,083 defendants, of which 95,721 were proceeded with. That amounts to 91.1 per cent. of the total cases. In the Crown court, 87,273 convictions were recorded, representing 90.6 per cent. of all cases proceeding to a hearing.

Mr. Fabricant: I thank the Attorney-General for that detailed reply. Does he accept that there is concern among beat officers in the Staffordshire police and, I know, in other forces throughout the country that those high conviction rates—98.1 per cent. and 91.1 per cent., representing an average of over 90 per cent.—could be leading the Crown Prosecution Service to continue with prosecution only if it thinks that there is a high possibility of conviction? Is he aware that many beat officers who suffer assaults, albeit minor ones, feel that their cases are not proceeding to court simply because the CPS wants to maintain a high conviction average, rather than ensure that justice is done? Will the Glidewell report improve the situation for those police officers?

The Attorney-General: There is concern and, over the years, my postbag has, like the hon. Gentleman's, contained correspondence about the concerns of victims, families and the police. I have given the House general figures, which include the high number of uncontested cases. For contested cases, in the year ending March 1998, convictions were recorded in 74.5 per cent. of contested hearings in magistrates courts and 59.8 per cent. of contested hearings in the Crown court. The hon. Gentleman may want to reflect on that, because those are the figures with which we should be particularly concerned.

Mr. David Kidney: It was not clear whether the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) was referring directly to discontinuances; perhaps I might ask my right hon. and learned Friend about what the Glidewell report says about discontinuances. Is he alarmed that in the past separate statistics for discontinuances have not been kept and that there has been no significant analysis

of regional variations in discontinuation rates? Should not the public be reassured that cases that should be prosecuted are prosecuted and that those that should not are never even started?

The Attorney-General: Sir Iain Glidewell and his team were very disappointed that they were not able to reach conclusions about that because of the problem of the variety of statistics, to which I referred earlier. Obviously, my hon. Friend will examine the details in the report, as will the House. On discontinuances, the report noted that there was a variation between offences. For some offences involving violence against the person, there was a higher rate of discontinuance than for offences such as motoring offences. That variation caused concern, and the team reflected on the matter and suggested that there should be a further study, as the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) mentioned, and that in cases of doubt and difficulty a second opinion should be obtained within the prosecuting authority.

Mr. Humfrey Malins: Does the Attorney-General agree that the percentage of convictions in contested cases in the Crown court could and should be improved by simple measures? First, there should be higher salaries for CPS lawyers. Secondly, and most important, there should be less form filling and paperwork for those involved in the service. Thirdly, wherever possible, the CPS headquarters should be near the courts where the service operates.

The Attorney-General: I know of the hon. Gentleman's experience, both judicially and in practice. What will help is a better interface between the CPS and the police, and Sir Iain makes detailed suggestions about the best way to integrate the two. The Home Secretary and I must study them carefully. The views of the Association of Chief Police Officers and the police will be very important in that respect. They have said that they welcome the move to the 42 areas, in which there will be a chief Crown prosecutor who will be akin to the chief constable. I very much appreciate their reaction.
On form filling, Sir Iain found that there was over-centralisation, undue bureaucracy and insufficient autonomy to the chief Crown prosecutors. I hope that, with the appointment of a chief Crown prosecutor in each area, and with real devolution and a slimming down of headquarters, we can achieve what the hon. Gentleman and I agree is necessary.

Business of the House

Sir George Young: May I ask the right hon. Lady to give us the business for next week?

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): The business for next week will be as follows.
MONDAY 8 JUNE—Progress on remaining stages of the Teaching and Higher Education Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 9 JUNE—For three hours, conclusion of remaining stages of the Teaching and Higher Education Bill [Lords].
Consideration of supplemental allocation of time motion relating to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill.
Consideration of a Lords amendment to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 10 JUNE—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Second Reading of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill.
THURSDAY 11 JUNE—Debate on the prospects for the Cardiff European Council on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 12 JUNE—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows.
MONDAY 15 JUNE—Consideration in Committee of the Human Rights Bill [Lords] (second allotted day).
TUESDAY 16 JUNE—Consideration in Committee of the Human Rights Bill [Lords](third allotted day).
WEDNESDAY 17 JUNE—Until 12.30 pm, debate on the fourth report of the Social Security Committee, on disability living allowance, followed by a debate on the first report of the Defence Committee, on peace support operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina. They will be followed by debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Opposition Day (13th allotted day)—a day for the official Opposition. The Opposition motion subject will be announced in due course.
THURSDAY 18 JUNE—Opposition day (14th allotted day).
There will be a debate on an Opposition motion in the name of the minority parties. Subject to be announced next week.
FRIDAY 19 JUNE—Debate entitled "Enterprising UK—The Small Business Agenda" on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Sir George Young: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for the information for next week, and for the indication of business the week after. We very much welcome the debate next Thursday on the prospects for the Cardiff European Council, but that leaves outstanding a more general debate on foreign affairs, for which my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), had been pressing for some time. When might we expect that?
We are anxious to have a debate on the national health service, whose 50th anniversary is within the next few weeks. Perhaps the Leader of the House can arrange a debate to coincide with that very important anniversary. There is still no sign of the promised debate on freedom of information. Perhaps we might have some idea of when we shall have that.
The Leader of the House must be aware of mounting interest in the outcome of the Chancellor's comprehensive expenditure review. Can she give us an idea of when we might expect its announcement, and an assurance that it will not be made in the days immediately before the summer recess? As that review is likely to set the financial parameters for the rest of this Parliament, it is clearly a most important statement and document. I am sure that the House expects to debate it in Government time before we rise for the summer recess. The need for a general economic debate is underlined by today's sixth rise in interest rates.
The right hon. Lady will be aware that it is customary to have three successive debates on the armed services. We had the Royal Air Force debate more than a month ago on 23 April, but debates on the other two services appear to have been grounded. Can the right hon. Lady assure the House that we shall debate the Army and the Navy before we rise for the summer recess? On defence-related matters, in his statement on the Madrid summit on 9 July last year, the Prime Minister promised a debate on NATO enlargement. Other countries are in the process of ratifying that document, but, almost a year later, we still have not debated that very important subject. When might we expect that debate?
I return to an issue raised by my predecessor in response to the first special report of the Foreign Affairs Committee and its request seeking the views of the House. I have seen the exchange of correspondence, but I suggest that the right hon. Lady has not addressed that crucial question or recognised the fact that it was a special report. Does the right hon. Lady propose to provide time for the House to give the Committee the guidance that it has specifically requested?
Finally, I have seen reports that, because of problems with the legislative programme that predate the welcome progress in Northern Ireland, the House may have to sit on Saturdays. Will the right hon. Lady confirm that she has no plans for the House to do that?

Mrs. Taylor: First, I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new position. We are pleased to see that his deputy, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), remains in his place. I hope that the combination of a new approach and continuity will work well. I am sure that it will.
I shall deal quickly with the right hon. Gentleman's questions, some of which have been raised before. We shall have a debate on Cardiff next week. I told the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor and the House that we would like to find time for a more general debate on foreign affairs, but it is never possible to have all the debates that we would wish in any Session of Parliament. As to the right hon. Gentleman's comments about a debate on the national health service, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) suggested some weeks ago that we should have such a debate around the time of the 50th anniversary. I said then that I was sympathetic to


the request, although I could give no guarantees in view of the other requests that have been made and the difficulties we have satisfying them all.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked about freedom of information. That legislation will be published first in draft form, and the relevant Select Committee will consider it at that stage. That is one of the procedures recommended by the Modernisation Committee, and I hope that several Bills can be treated in that way.
There will clearly be much interest in the spending review, both inside and outside the House. There will be a statement about that in the House in due course, but I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman when that will be—it will depend on when it is appropriate to debate the statement and other economic matters.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Royal Air Force debate and asked when we shall have the Army and Navy debates. I must admit that I did not notice much enthusiasm from some Opposition Members for that RAF debate. When I announced the debate, I was told by a senior Opposition Member—who is not a million miles away—that he did not demand such a debate. The right hon. Gentleman now asks for the other two service debates, and I shall bear his request in mind. However, as he has said, other matters also require debate and it is never possible to meet all requests.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned NATO enlargement. I have told the House that we shall seek to provide time for a debate on enlargement before ratification, and I hope that that debate can take place before the summer recess. I think that the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the Foreign Affairs Committee, and indeed that report, have been overtaken by events and by correspondence and discussions between the Foreign Secretary and the Committee.
With regard to sitting on Saturdays, we are certainly not considering that for the normal business of the House.

Mr. Harry Barnes: There is a drift mine at Moorside at Eckington in my constituency, which is the last pit in Derbyshire. Two men were killed this morning when a roof fell in at a heading—Mr. Hill, the assistant manager, and Mr. Martin. A third man escaped but is naturally somewhat traumatised by the experience. I am sure that the House will want to join me in sending sympathy to the families of the men who were killed and to the work force there, which consists of 20 people and is rather like a small family. To be in order, may I ask for a debate on safety in small mines?

Mrs. Taylor: I am sure that the whole House will wish to associate itself with my hon. Friend's expression of sympathy to the families of the deceased. It is right that we should all associate ourselves with those remarks. It was a very bad accident and investigations are being carried out by the Health and Safety Executive's mines inspectorate. I understand that there have been no previous fatal accidents at the pit, but that does not ease the situation today. The most appropriate course for my hon. Friend might be to apply for an Adjournment debate on the matter that he raises.

Mr. Paul Tyler: We associate ourselves with the welcome to the new shadow Leader of the House, but we dissociate ourselves from his apparent

distaste for Saturday sittings, in one particular. There is widespread support in the House, as I hope the Leader of the House will accept, for the early ratification of the Ottawa convention on land mines, as is evident from the large number of signatures from all parts of the House on early-day motion 1387.
[That this House congratulates Her Majesty's Government as one of the first signatories of the Ottawa Convention on 3rd December 1997; supports the commitment of the Government to encourage other states to sign and ratify the Convention at the earliest opportunity; applauds the efforts of the Inter- Parliamentary Union to encourage through parliamentary action the early entry into force of the Convention; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to fulfil the stated aim to be one of the first 40 states to ratify the Convention and to make early arrangements for the introduction of the necessary legislation in this House to enable ratification to take place as soon as possible.]
I hope that the Leader of the House will accept that that is urgent and should be in place before the anniversary of the death of Princess Diana. That could be a special case, and if there is difficulty in finding time, many hon. Members would agree that that is a worthy cause.
I do not know whether your morning, Madam Speaker, was brightened by the absence of the "Today" programme and in its place, soothing music. In my case, it was particularly improved by the fact that we did not have a succession of Ministers making statements to the wider world that they were not prepared to make to the House. Why have we had no statement on the group considering pension provision—an extremely important report? The Secretary of State for Social Security said that the statement issued today was clear and authoritative. It suggests that at least six in 10 of those going into retirement will find themselves in poverty under present provision. If that is not important to our fellow citizens, nothing is. Why was there no statement in the House this afternoon? Mr. John Humphrys may not be on duty, but we are.

Mrs. Taylor: From the reaction of some Opposition Members, I do not think that there is unanimity about sitting on Saturday for the purpose that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The Government are keen to make progress on the land mines issue. We signed the Ottawa convention in December. We have made it clear that we intend to ratify it as soon as parliamentary time allows for the passage of the necessary legislation.
The hon. Gentleman is a regular attender at these sessions and he will have heard me say that on several occasions. It is not just a question of hon. Members' views and it is not quite as simple as sitting on a Saturday. There are other responsibilities and there is other business before this House and before the House of Lords.
With reference to a statement on the pensions report, that report is one part of the information that will serve as background for the Green Paper on pensions that will be published later in the year. I see no reason for a statement every time another piece of information is published.

Mr. Chris Mullin: May I put it to my right hon. Friend that, despite recent improvements, the scrutiny that the House affords the security services


has been grossly inadequate? Are there any plans for the House to hold an annual debate on the security services, in the same way as we have annual debates on the armed forces?

Mrs. Taylor: As my hon. Friend knows, I am sympathetic to the idea of debates on the intelligence services. Perhaps we could have regular debates on the subject, although I cannot guarantee that they would be annual. The Intelligence and Security Committee, which, I think, knew that such debates were being suggested, has said that it is not opposed to a debate on its next report. As that report will not be available until the end of July, it may not be possible to have a debate until the spillover period, but I am certainly sympathetic to the idea of regular debates on such topics.

Mr. Peter Brooke: I had understood that yesterday was the second day of Committee proceedings on the Human Rights Bill. A further second day on 15 June will be an interesting procedural development.
May I raise a more important issue? When the Deputy Prime Minister made his statement about London Underground some months ago, he was good enough to say that he understood why hon. Members would want to debate the detail of developments. Can the Leader of the House tell us when we might have such a debate?

Mrs. Taylor: I am always open to new ideas and new procedural developments.
I know that there is considerable interest in the proceedings that will take place in London Underground, the agreements that have been reached and the suggestions that have been made, but there is a long list of topics that hon. Members wish to discuss. It is not possible to do everything: we still have a great deal of legislation to get through.
It is always possible for hon. Members to apply for Adjournment debates lasting for an hour and a half, as well as half-hour debates. Many of those debates have provided hon. Members with useful opportunities to raise issues of that kind.

Mr. David Winnick: Today is the 50th anniversary of the occasion when the Conservative party voted against bringing the national health service into existence—but let me turn to a different subject. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, go on."] I shall come back to that subject in due course.
Would it not be appropriate to debate the fact that a good part of the earnings of the highest-paid barristers in the country—some earn well over £1 million a year—comes from legal aid fees? At a time when legal aid has been severely restricted for so many of our fellow citizens, is it not shameful, indeed scandalous, that people earning well over £1 million a year should draw some of those earnings from public funds? The sooner that scandal is ended, the better.

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend has made his point about the fact that the Conservatives voted against the NHS. If it were possible to have a debate on the subject, he could make it again.
As for legal aid earnings, my hon. Friend may know that the House of Lords is to hold a judicial hearing to consider the fees that QCs are charging in a number of instances. The Lord Chancellor's Department has been asked to make representations at that hearing, and will be doing so. At this stage, the matter is judicial, and I do not think that it would be appropriate to comment further now; nor do I see any prospect of an early debate.

Mr. Edward Leigh: The right hon. Lady announced that there would be a debate on the Social Security Committee's report on disability. Will she confirm that, when the Minister concerned replies to that debate, he or she will apologise to the Government for the crass way in which the benefit integrity project was introduced by the Government, which has caused enormous distress to disabled people? In particular, will the Minister apologise for the fact that there was apparently such a lack of control in the Department that the responsible Minister only heard about the project a month after it was introduced, by way of a telephone call
at Preston railway station?

Mrs. Taylor: I am always amazed at the selective amnesia suffered by Conservative Members in regard to their own record. It really is a cheek for them to suggest that this issue should be discussed, in view of what happened previously.
One of my right hon. Friends will reply to the debate, and I am sure that that reply will be excellent.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I once said:
If I have nightmares, they are about a Pakistani bomb … It is for that reason that I go on and on, at Prime Minister's Question Time, about the Khan incident, the Urenco incident at Almelo."—[Official Report, 24 January 1980; Vol. 977, c. 726.]
Briefly, its relevance is this. The leader of the Pakistani team was then a research student at the university of Brussels who systematically stole much vital sensitive information from the Urenco project. At the time, all sorts of undertakings were given, outlined after endless written questions from me and others, about the security of nuclear secrets. Is there not a case for having a serious debate next week or some time, at any rate, before the recess, on the follow-up to Monday's statement? Few subjects are more immediate and more potentially catastrophic than the nuclear difficulties between India and Pakistan, and we have some role in the matter.

Mrs. Taylor: Not for the first time, my hon. Friend refers to warnings that he has given about potential catastrophes and dangers that lie ahead, and not for the first time he has been able to show that his warnings were relevant. He is aware of the statement on Monday and of the concern on both sides of the House about developments in Pakistan and India in respect of nuclear weapons. We have to watch the situation very carefully. There is serious concern, but, even with that serious concern, I do not think that it is possible to have an early debate on the matter.

Mr. William Ross: The Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill raises some fundamental questions with regard to crime and punishment and law and order. We are having the Second Reading debate next week, but, as yet, no provision seems to have been made


for the rest of the Bill to be taken on the Floor of the House, which we on Ulster Unionist Benches believe is the proper place for the Committee proceedings to take place, so that everyone may be properly informed as to what is going on in that regard. May we have that assurance and be given dates as to when the Bill will come back to Committee on the Floor of the House, rather than being kicked upstairs to a Committee Room and no one knowing what is going on?
May we also be told when the Second Reading debate on the Northern Ireland constitution Bill will take place? It seems monstrous that we should now be engaged in an election campaign for the Northern Ireland assembly, yet we do not know all that that assembly will be able to do, or the rules under which it will operate.

Mrs. Taylor: I have announced Second Reading of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill and nothing further. The business that I have announced for the second week is, of course, provisional. I am happy to say to the hon. Gentleman that I do think it appropriate that the Committee stage should take place on the Floor of the House. We shall have discussions through the usual channels about arrangements for the handling of that Bill.
The hon. Gentleman asked when the Northern Ireland constitution Bill would have its Second Reading debate. He will understand that drawing up that technical legislation is complex and that it is important that we get it right. At this stage, I cannot give him a date for the introduction of that Bill.

Ms Sally Keeble: Will my right hon. Friend find time for either a statement or a debate about the recent flooding in our constituencies? There are still many problems in regard to benefits, insurance and flood warnings and defences. It has not been possible to raise them properly so far, and they affect more people than could normally be dealt with during an Adjournment debate.
We received the interim report from the independent inquiry just this week, but I think that the final report will come out only in the recess. It is extremely important for those of us who had the worst floods for more than 50 years that we have an opportunity to discuss the wide range of issues on the Floor of the House.

Mrs. Taylor: I can well understand why my hon. Friend is concerned about the impact of that flooding on her constituents. As she says, the preliminary independent report has been published. It identifies some lessons that should be learned from that exceptional event. Ministers are considering follow-up action with the Environment Agency for England and Wales. As she says, the review team will produce its final report later in the year, although we do not yet know exactly when.
My hon. Friend says that it might not be possible to deal with all the concerns in a half-hour Adjournment debate because of the seriousness of the matter and because so many hon. Members are interested. It might be possible for her and her colleagues to apply for one of the one-and-a-half-hour debates. That might be the best way in which to proceed.

Mr. Andrew Stunell: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Health

to make a statement about the projected reorganisation of health authorities in England? May I also draw to her attention the grave concern building up in Greater Manchester, particularly in Stockport, where an effective health authority coterminous with the council feels itself to be under threat and morale is dropping rapidly?

Mrs. Taylor: I cannot see prospects of an early debate, and am not aware of the specific details in Greater Manchester. However, I shall of course ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is made aware of the hon. Gentleman's worries about the prospects there.

Mr. Laurence Robertson: Will the Leader of the House ask one of the Education Ministers to come to the House to clarify the position of grant-maintained schools? The Labour party has always been a strong opponent of grant-maintained schools, saying that it would return them to council control. However, in a parliamentary answer to me, the Government now deny that that will happen. In the press this week, the Government said that schools would be given more of their own funds to control. Will Ministers explain the exact position, so that schools, parents and the House might be aware of it?

Mrs. Taylor: Education and Employment questions will be next Thursday. The proposals are not about allowing schools to opt out of the local education authority sector but about giving schools maximum scope for self-management within that sector. We have consistently said that we see a vital role for local education authorities, but that they should do their job and, as far as possible, allow schools to get on with theirs. Consultation on the matter is under way and will end on 31 July. However, the proposals have been misrepresented by the hon. Gentleman—not least because he has, presumably, been reading press reports. I repeat that the proposals are not about allowing schools to opt out of LEAs.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: Will the Leader of the House find time in the near future for a debate on corruption in local government? Although we have recently heard a great deal about Scotland, I should like to home in rather closer to home—on serious allegations of local government corruption in Kettering, near my constituency. To assist that debate, will she make available not only internal Labour party documents on Scotland—which have been kept secret—but the internal national executive committee inquiry into corruption in Kettering? Before she answers, I hope that—knowing her to be an intelligent lady—she will not start nattering about Westminster, like some Blairite parrot. We are talking about current corruption, not corruption that occurred long before many of us were elected to the House.

Mrs. Taylor: I am amazed at the cheek of Conservative Members on such issues. Whenever there has been any suggestion of malpractice, the Labour party has acted swiftly and openly—very differently from the way in which the Conservative party has acted. The Conservative party has, of course, not yet even apologised for Westminster.

Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West): Is not a debate overdue on the first early-day motion of this Parliament, early-day motion 1?
[That this House celebrates with joy and hope the election of what will be a great reforming Labour Government; applauds its manifesto declaration that 'all pensioners should share fairly in the increasing prosperity of the nation'; asserts that this can be achieved for the present generation of pensioners only by restoring the link between basic pensions and average earning; urges an immediate start to the promised manifesto review of 'all aspects of the basic pension and its value, second pensions including SERPS and community care' and a renewal of the commitment to retain SERPS.]
Should not that debate be combined with a discussion of the splendid Ross report—published today—which clearly identifies the 1980 breaking of the link between pensions and earnings as the main cause of pensioner poverty, and states that all basic pensioners are now losing £25 per week because that link was broken? Is it not true that the manifesto on which all Labour Members stood in the general election promised pensioners that Labour would ensure that they shared fairly in the United Kingdom's growing prosperity? Is it not true that, according to Ross and many others, the best way of informing the Government's review of the pensions industry is to ensure that justice is done to pensioners in the fairest and most efficient way—by restoring the link?

Mrs. Taylor: I said earlier that the report was a clear and authoritative statement which will provide an important background for the Government's Green Paper on pensions, to be published later this year. That and other information will be taken into account.

Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Given the enthusiasm in the House and, more importantly, in the country for progress on my namesake's Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill and the Government's understandable reluctance to give additional time from their important legislative programme, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be appropriate, as she does not need Saturdays for Government business, to allow voluntary overtime so that progress can be made on the Saturdays that have been pencilled in?

Mrs. Taylor: I have said several times that the responsibility for delaying the Bill rests with the Conservative Members who have tried to frustrate the will of the House. However, my hon. Friend's proposal is not the answer.

Mr. John Bercow: Will the Leader of the House find time for an early statement on the Government's review of the roads programme? She will be aware that the statement was originally scheduled for spring 1998, as the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), told me in a written answer on 29 July last year. This is a serious matter. I recognise that a great deal of work has to go into the review, but for my constituents, particularly the long-suffering people of the village of Aston Clinton, who have long championed the cause of a bypass, an early

statement would be welcome. This is not a matter of party politics. People of all political affiliations and of none would welcome an early decision and statement.

Mrs. Taylor: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that a great deal of work has to go into such a complex review. The work is well advanced and I do not think that we shall have to wait too long for further information.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: The Leader of the House will be aware of the thanksgiving service in Lichfield cathedral on Sunday for 50 years of the national health service. May we have a debate on the crisis in the NHS—not only the increasing waiting lists, of which she is only too well aware, but the growing and worrying habit of the positioning of Labour placemen and women in key posts in NHS trusts? Perhaps she will address the House in particular to the problem of Premier Health NHS trust in Lichfield. The tenure of the chairman of the trust was not renewed. She was replaced by a member of the Labour party who has a full-time job, is unable to meet the chief executive of the trust during normal working hours and is available only on Saturdays, some Sundays and occasional evenings.

Mrs. Taylor: I have already commented on the appropriateness of having a 50th anniversary debate, if possible. I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that if the Conservatives were still in power, funding for the national health service would be lower and waiting lists longer. He and his colleagues have quite a nerve complaining about nominees to NHS trusts from this Government.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the right hon. Lady agree that ministerial responsibility is a concept to be prized in the British constitution? Will she call for an early debate on it? Does she agree that it is very important that Ministers extend the courtesy of replying individually to hon. Members' mail rather than having officials sign the mail out, so that we can be convinced that Ministers have at least read our letters? It does not seem an intolerable burden for a Minister to be expected to sign approximately 25 letters a day—I gather that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has up to 6,000 a year.

Mrs. Taylor: On occasion, the number of letters involved is even greater.

Madam Speaker: It can be 500 a day.

Mrs. Taylor: As you remind us, Madam Speaker, the number is sometimes as much as 500 a day, which is indeed very significant. The issue of Ministers signing letters and the speed of response has been raised before. I have recently described the action that has been taken to try to ensure that the situation is as good as possible. Of course, there will always be some occasions on which Ministers cannot sign letters for reasons of urgency.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Does the Leader of the House know when World Environment day is? Why are we not having a debate on the environment either on that day or within a reasonable period of it? Has the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions told her what it is doing to mark that day, as it


is being marked in more than 100 countries? When my office telephoned the Department last week, people there could not tell us.

Mrs. Taylor: Such announcements are made at the discretion of the Department; they will be made when the Department feels it appropriate to do so.

Mr. Edward Garnier: The right hon. Lady may well be a victim of one of the huge piles of correspondence to which you, Madam Speaker, have just referred. In business questions about 10 weeks ago, I asked the right hon. Lady a question, and she said that she would reply to me by letter. I had to ask her again shortly before the Whitsun recess. I am a very patient and good-natured fellow, but I am still waiting for a reply. I hope that it is not too difficult a question to ask her again.

Mrs. Taylor: The specific topic that the hon. and learned Gentleman raises is part of the subject of legislation going through the House. It will be dealt with when we reach the appropriate stage. I am not responsible for such detail in legislation. Until the matter is finally resolved, I cannot give him all the detailed information that he requires.

Mr. Eric Forth: Following the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), may we have an urgent debate on the relationship between the House and the Government, specifically the responsibilities of Ministers to give replies to Members of Parliament, and through them, to the public? Surely it cannot be the case that a Minister would allow, as the Leader of the House implied a moment ago—inadvertently, I trust—letters to leave his or her Department unsigned, except in exceptional circumstances. Nor can a very large quantity of letters going out in a Minister's name—committing the Minister and the Government collectively to the reply—be an excuse or an alibi. Can the matter be clarified, please, and in a proper debate? It is an emerging scandal.

Mrs. Taylor: This is not a new issue. When the Conservative party was in government, it was certainly not unusual to receive replies from Ministers signed by someone in the Minister's Department. It was usually said that the Minister had approved the letter. Ministers approve and take responsibility for all letters that go out in their names.

Mr. Leigh: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You said a few moments ago, in a sedentary intervention—[Laughter.] I make no criticism of you for doing so. You

have said that you conducted some research into the matter that we have just been discussing. You obviously take it very seriously, as we all do. Powers of Members of Parliament are somewhat limited, but we have always been able to ensure that, if our constituents have a grievance, at least they know that a letter about it has landed on a Minister's desk. That is a terribly important part of our constitution and the way in which we conduct politics. As well as doing some research, could you put gentle pressure on the Government, as only you can, to ensure that we maintain the fine and important tradition of Ministers replying to Members of Parliament?

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Would you also be kind enough to look carefully at the relationship between Members of Parliament and several Government agencies? One of the hazards is not that Ministers are not answering letters, but the increasing incidence of letters from hon. Members being diverted to civil service agencies—created by the previous Government—which have astonishing and nebulous lines of accountability. Frankly, such agencies are not fulfilling their tasks properly.

Madam Speaker: Let me say at the outset that those are not matters for me; they are matters for Government Departments. None the less, I understand the situation and I want to be helpful not only to Back Benchers but to Ministers. I have carried out some research on the matter, and I gave the House a figure today—something like 500 letters per week, I think. That is an inordinate number of letters, which I know that one particular Department has to send. It is not a matter for me, but I am trying to resolve it, and hon. Members will have to be good tempered and have some patience until the Department concerned can find a method of working the problem out to satisfy Back Benchers. I understand that they want to send their constituents letters signed by a Minister, but it is not the Minister who does the work for the Back Benchers; having had guidance from the Minister, they must do a lot of work themselves, too.

BILL PRESENTED

NORTHERN IRELAND (SENTENCES)

Secretary Marjorie Mowlam, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Secretary Cook, Mr. Secretary Straw, Mr. Secretary Dewar and Mr. Adam Ingram, presented a Bill to make provision about the release on licence of certain persons serving sentences of imprisonment in Northern Ireland: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 196].

Orders of the Day — Registration of Political Parties Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill is designed to improve the fairness of our democratic process. Before I deal with the detail, as this is the first occasion on which the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) will respond to a debate in his new place on the Opposition Front Bench, I congratulate him on his further elevation to the esteemed position of shadow Home Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman and I have debated issues several times, although perhaps less often than one might have thought, given the time that we have both spent in the House. I look forward to the future, in which we shall have that opportunity in greater measure.
The Bill will help to prevent the use of misleading candidates' descriptions on ballot papers at elections, thus helping to protect the identity of political parties and, therefore, the integrity of the political process. In addition, the Bill will allow, for the first time, a registered party's emblem to be printed on the ballot paper as a way of helping to distinguish as clearly as possible between candidates from different parties.
The Bill introduces no criminal sanctions against non-registration. It does not make the registration of political parties compulsory, but it creates strong incentives for them to register. Any serious party that intends to put forward candidates at an election would be well advised to register so as to be allowed to do the following four things, which otherwise would not be permitted under the Bill.
First, a party will be able to protect its name from misuse by others. Secondly, it will be able to put forward lists of candidates for the additional member system for election to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh assembly, and, within Great Britain but not in Northern Ireland, for the regional list system of election to the European Parliament. We have had many fascinating debates on that system, and I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield has missed them.
In view of the Conservative party's new-found attachment to the algebra and algorithms of electoral processes, I shall send him a full briefing from the Home Office on the difference between the D'Hondt divisors, Sainte-Lague pure and Sainte-Lague modified. He may then wish that he had taken on a different job.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: I bet you do.

Mr. Straw: No, not at all.
The third incentive for parties to register is an important new one—so that a party's emblem can be printed alongside a candidate's name on the ballot paper. I find it relatively easy to vote for the appropriate Labour candidate in parliamentary elections, because, for the last five elections, that has been me, so I have no difficulty spotting the name. However, when faced with a long list

in the three-member local government ward in which I live, I have wished for emblems so that I could immediately spot the names of the excellent Labour candidates alongside them.
Fourthly, the Bill will ensure that only those parties that are registered will be eligible, but not entitled, to be offered a party political broadcast—unregistered political parties will not be allowed that benefit.
Any organisation, large or small, will be able to register. The way in which a party is organized—or, as I should say to the Conservative party, whether it is organized—how it selects its candidates and its aims and objectives will remain for each party to determine individually in accordance with its rules or constitution.
The key condition for inclusion in the register is that a party intends to put forward one or more candidates at a relevant election. If hon. Members turn to clause 2(2)—as I am sure that they have in preparation for the debate—they will see set out the relevant elections for these purposes, which include parliamentary and local government elections, and elections to the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales, the New Northern Ireland Assembly and the European Parliament.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: What will happen if a registered party does not put up candidates for an election?

Mr. Straw: Nothing, except that the party will have wasted the registration fee, as no benefits from registration could apply unless the party has put forward candidates at an election. Parties may want to register and then not put forward candidates, but we shall certainly not make that a criminal offence—"tough on crime" does not include such behaviour.
We need a register of parties to cope with lists of candidates representing the same party that will be put forward for the additional member seats in the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales and in the regional list seats in the European Parliament. As the House knows, those seats will be allocated on the basis of each party's share of the votes in the region. For the system to work fairly, there has to be a simple and effective arrangement to ensure that the voters and the returning officers are clear which list of candidates is being put forward by each party.
Apart from the other mischief with which we want to deal, the Bill's main purpose is to cope with the additional member and regional list systems, whatever their merits—I accept that they are controversial—which require a register of political parties. The Bill spells out the details of the registration scheme required for the new electoral systems, as requested by Opposition Members during the debates on the Scotland, Government of Wales and European Parliamentary Election Bills.
This Bill follows extensive consultation with Opposition parties, so I hope that, although there may be many points to be made in Committee, it will receive support from both sides of the House. I have raised the issues with spokespeople for the other political parties in the House—last summer, in the case of the main political parties. I wrote formally to the Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Scottish National parties and Plaid Cymru on 18 February and again on 23 April, setting out the plans for registration and giving them an opportunity to


comment both orally and in writing. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has kept the Northern Ireland political parties informed of our proposals on registration.

Mr. Robert Syms: Under the Bill, if one does not register, one does not qualify for a political broadcast. Does that mean that if Sinn Fein does not register as a British political party—giving its name also in English—it will not qualify for a political broadcast in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Straw: The final clause—clause 26—makes it clear that the Bill extends to Northern Ireland; it applies without exception to every political party putting forward candidates anywhere in the United Kingdom. Paragraph 2 of schedule 1, which deals with the names of parties, requires that, whenever a language other than English or Welsh is used, a party should give a translation of its name. There is not a requirement for the translation to be shown on the ballot paper. The registrar simply needs to know what the words mean. That will not apply to Sinn Fein—the phrase has been used in common parlance for as long as the party has been in existence. Everybody knows what it means.
These days, we are a multicultural, multi-ethnic society. Many of my constituents have a first language that is not English, but Gujarati, Urdu or Punjabi. There are similar groups across the country. If they put forward a name, it is important that there is a translation attached in English so that the returning officer can make a judgment on whether the name is consistent with the criteria in the Bill.
I want to make it clear that the requirements on the translation being given in English have nothing to do with Ireland, because all the names there are well known. They were much more concerned with languages used by minority groups in Great Britain. In some languages, the same word may have different meanings—that is also true in English—and it is important that we know which meaning is being used.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: My right hon. Friend mentioned that he had written to Plaid Cymru, which recently decided on a—quite accurate—translation of its name as "the party of Wales". Clause 3(1)(a) refers to a name
likely to result in the party's being confused by voters with a party which is already registered".
The party of Wales is the Labour party. We have 34 of the 40 Members of Parliament, yet Plaid Cymru chooses—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. This is a very long intervention.

Mr. Williams: I shall try to be brief. Is clause 3(1)(a) relevant to this misleading translation?

Mr. Straw: Under paragraph 2(2) of schedule 1, there is no requirement for a translation when the name is in Welsh. We do not need to argue what Plaid Cymru means—it means what it says in Welsh. Those of us whose knowledge of Welsh extends to a few words, and who do not presume to get involved in Welsh politics, will not require a translation. Welsh is separately identified in the schedule because Welsh is a separate statutory language under the Welsh Language Act 1967.
There are other languages in common use in other parts of the UK, including Gaelic and a number of languages from south Asia. Some might say that more people use Urdu every day than use Welsh. I could not possibly offer a view, but that is not the point. The point is that Welsh is the only language with statutory status, apart from English.

Mr. Adrian Sanders: Would the same rules apply to Mebyon Kernow in Cornwall?

Mr. Straw: No. I respect the fact that there is a vibrant Cornish language, but Cornish is not statutorily provided for; Welsh is. If someone wishes to register a name in Cornish, he or she would need to provide the registrar with a translation of the name. The words used on the ballot paper will be the Cornish words, provided they are in Roman script. However, the registration officer might not be versed in Cornish—or Welsh, Scots Gaelic or Irish Gaelic—and will need a translation in English so that he can check the name against the others being used, and against the prohibitions in respect of obscenity, for example. A party supporting Cornish nationalism, or a Gaelic language party, can stand not only in Cornwall or Gaelic-speaking parts of Scotland. They can stand where they like in the United Kingdom. It does not automatically follow that if a Cornish nationalist wants to stand in, say, Scunthorpe, the registration officer will know Cornish all that well.

Mr. Swayne: The Home Secretary has revealed a wide flaw in the Bill. There are bound to be differences of opinion over what constitutes a rightful name for a political party. The Bill has no provision for third party involvement in making representations or appeals against registration.

Mr. Straw: The scheme is similar to that for the registration of company names, although it is not the same. It makes use of the registrar of companies, which has had decades of experience of dealing with similar names and people trying to pass off one name against another. The hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) seems to have volunteered to serve on the Standing Committee, which will surely come as a great relief to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield. There are many ways to pick through the Bill, saying, "What if this, or that." The ingenuity of people who are interested in British politics knows no bounds. However, I suspect that, in practice, the difficulties will not be as great as the hon. Gentleman expects.

Mr. Anthony Steen: Before the Home Secretary leaves that point—I am not quite sure what it was—will he touch on a matter of interest to Members on both sides, which is the number of candidates at the last election, and in recent years, who have been guilty of passing off? They have called themselves Conversatives or Literal Democrats in a deliberate attempt to mislead the electorate. I welcome the thrust of the Bill, but will the Home Secretary explain whether it will assist in the striking out of that sort of candidate? Returning officers have powers now, but do not often use them. In my constituency, at the last election, a man—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point.

Mr. Straw: The Bill deals directly with misleading descriptions of parties. If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall explain the provisions in detail.

Mr. Graham Brady: The Home Secretary referred to the fact that some languages, particularly south Asian languages, have different meanings for the same word. Although the Bill requires an English translation to be published, it does not appear to provide for which English translation that should be. Do the Government intend to make sure that an appropriate and accurate representation of the meaning of names is given?

Mr. Straw: South Asian languages are not alone in having words of the same spelling and different meanings. Invalid and invalid is one example. When people move on from the usual Christmas parlour game of naming 10 famous Belgians—I can help the House with the first name: Victor d'Hondt—they can move on to lists of homophones, homonyms and homographs, with which we have whiled away many a happy hour in my household.
As the House knows, we originally intended to use the Bill to introduce regulations on funding of political parties, as I said last October. At the request of Lord Neill of Bladen, the chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, those provisions have not been included in the Bill. His committee is in the middle of an inquiry on the wider funding of political parties, so I agreed with him that it would be wrong to pre-empt its conclusions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, Hear."] I am glad to hear that that has the approbation of Opposition Front-Bench Members.
As was spelt out in our manifesto, the Government remain committed to requiring details of all donations to political parties above a set figure to be published and to introducing a ban on the foreign funding of political parties. Therefore, we remain committed to legislation in that area, but will bring forward our proposals only in the light of the Neill committee's recommendations.

Dr. Tony Wright: On further and wider legislation, is it also the Government's view that we need to bring all aspects of the conduct of elections, including funding, together under some sort of electoral commission, as is often proposed outside the House? The Bill will clean up particular problems, but are we finally moving in the direction of such a commission to pull it all together?

Mr. Straw: The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), is chairing a working party that includes representatives of all the main political parties and their organisation departments, to look into electoral practice. For many years, an electoral commission has been proposed, which could merge the work of the two boundary commissions—parliamentary and local government—with some of the work currently undertaken by the Home Office. I understand the arguments in favour of such an electoral commission and we are certainly open to argument about such an idea, but we have no proposals to put before the House for the moment.
The Bill provides for the register of political parties to be maintained by the existing Registrar of Companies for England and Wales based at Companies House in Cardiff. I am sure that the House will agree that it is much better to base the register on an existing tried and tested organisation, which is used to providing a highly efficient service both to companies needing to register and to members of the public seeking information from the register.
The register of political parties will be quite separate from the companies register and much smaller. More than 1 million companies are registered at Companies House, whereas we expect that no more than 100 or so parties will seek to register, although that, of course, is a matter for the parties that choose to do so and it is only our guess.
The expertise of Companies House staff in providing public access to the register and deciding whether a company may use a particular name will prove invaluable and the Government believe that it is right, therefore, to have a single register of political parties for the whole of the United Kingdom.
Before a party can be registered, the registrar will need to make sure that its name is not likely to be confused with a name that is already registered. That would mean, for example, that if the "Conservative Party" were to be registered, the registrar could refuse to allow another party to register the name the "Tory Party", in case it was confused with the party led by the Leader of the Opposition.
Under the Bill, the name of a registered party will have to be six words or fewer, to ensure that it meets the existing rules governing the candidate's description for nomination and ballot papers. The Bill provides that the party's name should not be obscene or offensive and must not include words that would be unlawful, in the sense, for example, of an incitement to racial hatred.
The Bill also contains an order-making power in clause 3(1)(f) to allow any word or expression to be prohibited. In case hon. Members are worried about that, I should explain that it is there to prevent certain words, such as "Royal", from being used in the title of a party. It will also help ensure that certain generic words or phrases, such as "Independent" or "Residents Association" are not registered by a single party so as to prevent their being used widely by individual candidates. It would be possible to use that power to require any party wishing to use such a term to qualify it with a geographical area, for example—choosing one entirely at random—the "Blackburn Residents Association Party", or the "Revidge Independents". That is the ward in which I live in Blackburn.
Clause 9 requires each party to provide the names of two "responsible officers" as the "registered leader" and "registered nominating officer", who, together, will be responsible for authorising any change to the registered details of the party. In addition, the nominating officer is to be responsible for authorising use of the party's name by candidates at elections, either directly or by someone acting on his or her behalf.
To keep the register up to date, parties will have to confirm their registration annually. There will need to be a fee, set by regulations, both for initial registration and for the annual confirmation of registration. Although the exact amount has yet to be determined, we think that it


will be about £100 for initial registration. That is not likely to be onerous, even for the Conservative party. Parties will be able to register an emblem.

Mr. Sanders: Would the £100 figure apply to a local council candidate standing for, say, the Redbridge residents association?

Mr. Straw: Yes, but only if he or she decides to register. There is no requirement to register. If such people decided to register, they would have to pay a fee, but I do not think that it is onerous.

Mr. Steen: As I understand it, there is nothing to stop a local man standing in a general election as a Local Conservative or Loyal Conservative, even though he would be misleading the electorate into thinking that he is the official Conservative candidate. The Bill does not deal with that, so he could stand—just as at present. Are the Government thinking of adding something to help in those circumstances?

Mr. Straw: The Bill provides for precisely that. In paragraph 2 of schedule 2, we have reworded rule 6 of the election rules. Rule 6A states:
A nomination paper may not include a description of a candidate which is likely to lead voters to associate the candidate with a registered political party unless the description is authorised by a certificate—
(a) issued by or on behalf of the registered nominating officer of the party, and
(b) received by the returning officer during the period for delivery of nomination papers set out … in rule 1."
If a party's description is registered, a non-registered party cannot use a name that seeks, or is likely, to mislead voters about the identity of a party. We anticipate that the use of names such as Literal Democrat or Conversative or Conservatory party, all of which have been tried, or, just possibly, New Labour will not be permitted for a non-registered party.

Mr. Steen: As I read it, rule 6A merely clarifies something that was not too clear, while leaving the onus on the returning officer during a general election to make a decision. If he decides against someone, that person would have go to the High Court, and the whole thing would become so extended that the general election would be over. Is there any new procedure whereby the returning officer would not have to go down that track if someone does not agree with his finding that a new or alternative name is not misleading?

Mr. Straw: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, whom I have known for a long time, I do not believe that he has quite followed the true meaning of the provision.

Mr. Steen: Quite likely.

Mr. Straw: It is generous of the hon. Gentleman to say that. He has not followed the true meaning of the reworked rule 6A. It is possible, in extremis, for electors to challenge a decision of the returning officer and to seek judicial review of decisions. That is important for any person exercising such a key function in our democracy. Returning officers carry out their jobs to a high standard of integrity and professionalism, but there are sometimes

controversial decisions. It is important that there should be a safety valve of supervision by the courts, which will examine only the reasonableness of a returning officer's decision. They will consider whether the Wednesbury test applies: that is, whether the decision is manifestly unreasonable, rather than considering its positively reasonableness. 
The Bill does not deal directly with the issue of misleading candidates' names. It is a matter of record that, at the last general election, the courts showed themselves ready to grant injunctions to prevent that sort of passing off. That was the case in respect of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon). The right hon. and learned Gentleman was faced with a candidate who had adopted the name "Sir Nicholas Lyell" and, in the same vein, my hon. Friend was faced with a candidate calling herself "Alice Mahon". [HON. MEMBERS: "Himself."] As I recall, there is provenance for men calling themselves Alice, but that is a very different point. We believe that there are remedies already available in law to deal with such cases.

Mr. Mark Oaten: Having lived through such an experience twice in the past 12 months, I know that one of the difficulties is the period of time in which one is allowed to challenge these processes. What the Home Secretary suggests is fine, but what is not fine is the period of time in which the controls can be put in place. Has he any plans to extend that period from the current rather hurried 24 hours and so ensure that proper legal process can take place?

Mr. Straw: The process of registering will take place in a relatively relaxed period, as any sensible political party—which category will, in my judgment, include all those that are currently represented in the House—will register at the first opportunity after the Bill becomes law. Once that happens, Liberal Democrats will be protected from, for example, people trying to apply the description "Literal Democrat", which produced a quite undemocratic result in an election during the 1994 European elections; and the Conservative party will be protected from the twist of using the words "conservatory" or "conversative", which has also caught out electors and tricked them into voting for one candidate when they wanted to vote for another.
No one should underestimate the huge difference that the use of emblems on ballot papers will make. The Bill will ensure that, for the first time, emblems will be included on ballot papers. There is an illustration in the appendix on page 10 of the Bill. Only parties that are registered and have registered their emblem as a trademark, as it were, will be able to use that emblem. Given that party emblems are so widely known these days, that in itself will provide a major protection.
In order to ensure the smooth introduction of the register, there will be two transitional registration phases, each lasting six weeks. The first phase will apply to all parties that have at least one Member of the House of Commons. The second phase will apply to any other party, but will require the registrar to defer any registration until the end of the period, so that he can consider any competing claims for the same or similar party names or emblems. In making a decision at the end of the second phase, the registrar will be able to take account of the history of parties with competing claims.
In making decisions on similar names, the registrar will need to ensure that voters are not likely to be confused. In case of doubt, clause 10 allows the registrar, before deciding an application, to seek advice from a Committee of Members of the House of Commons, appointed for that purpose by the Speaker. We thought long and hard about how we could best ensure that the registrar would not be left in the awkward position of having to make a judgment in an area where his expertise currently does not lie. We decided that the best approach was for him to be advised by a Committee of the House appointed by Madam Speaker.
We initially took into account the remote possibility of the advice from the Speaker's Committee being unclear, confusing or contradictory. Therefore, clause 10(2) provides that if the registrar disagrees with the advice of the Committee, he must give the Committee his reasons in writing. However, there is no question but that the registrar will be expected to follow the Committee's advice.
I recognise that there is a degree of impertinence in expecting a Committee under Madam Speaker to make a decision but allowing for the possibility of that decision being overturned by the registrar. Having considered that question further in consultation with Madam Speaker, I now think that the most appropriate course would be for the registrar, in circumstances where he is unhappy with the advice received from the Committee, to go back to the Committee for further clarification, but then, in the final analysis, to follow its advice. Therefore, in my judgment, there is no need for the final part of clause 10, and I propose to table amendments on that point in Committee. Once the two transitional phases are complete, any application to register a new party will be considered simply on its merits.
Clause 14 deals with party political broadcasts. Once that provision comes into force, any party that is not registered will not be able to benefit from the opportunity of having a party political broadcast. That does not affect the existing arrangements for the allocation of party political broadcasts. In particular, it will not entitle registered parties to broadcasts, but will merely bring them into the group of parties that may be eligible.
Schedule 2, which we have already discussed at some length, amends the parliamentary election rules to enable returning officers to refuse a nomination with the name of a registered party, or with any description that is likely to lead voters to associate the candidate with that party, unless the nominating officer has authorised the use of the party's name. As I have explained—I hope to the satisfaction of the House—I believe that that will deal with the long-standing problem of misleading candidates' descriptions.
The Bill will return some of the sense and fairness to our democratic system by removing the anomaly of candidates who are able to exploit loopholes in the current electoral rules and who use such clearly misleading labels. The Bill may be a technical measure, but it is an important one. It introduces for the first time provisions allowing parties' names to be registered and party emblems to be shown on ballot papers and prevents misleading candidates' descriptions. I hope that the House will agree that the Bill is a positive step forward, and I commend it to the House.

Sir Norman Fowler: Listening to the Home Secretary, it seems to me that, in some ways, we have regressed on the question of rules for elections. In the debate on proportional representation, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned a former Member of Parliament for my home town of Chelmsford in Essex, the late Sir Hubert Ashton. He reminded the House of Sir Hubert saying that his job was to represent Chelmsford at Westminster and not the other way around.
As the Home Secretary revealed, we are both Essex-educated men: I at the local grammar school; he, rather more grandly, at the posh public school down the road, but I do not hold that against him. He will know from those earlier days that, for many years, there was no description of party at all on the ballot paper. In Chelmsford, one voted for Ashton or for Millington—the Liberal candidate did not really count; nothing really changes in Chelmsford. In those days, when class sizes could be more than 40, let alone 30, the people were sufficiently politically aware to work out for whom they should vote: they had received the election address; they had seen the posters; they were capable of remembering the allegiances.
Now, with the Bill, the Government are introducing a system whereby not only will the party of the candidate be set out on the ballot paper, but symbols will be printed on it, so as to make even clearer the party position. In his press release announcing the Bill, the Home Secretary said that casting one's vote will become even "simpler" as a result of the Bill, but I am not sure whether the illustration on page 10 of the Bill proves his case. My feeling is that the net effect of the symbols is to make a more crowded and rather bizarre ballot paper that is more likely to confuse than to inform. I remain deeply sceptical as to whether that change is necessary.

Mr. Swayne: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that complexity arises out of the electoral changes that the Government either have already initiated, or have in prospect, which will make the whole business of voting and the ballot paper so much more complicated that we might require such symbols in order to find out where we stand?

Sir Norman Fowler: My hon. Friend takes me, in an almost seamless flow, on to my next points.
We have moved on a long way from the 1947 committee report on electoral law reform, which said,
we think the nomination paper should describe the candidate and not the cause".
The Home Secretary set out some of the events that have led to confusion among the electorate and, at times, deliberate attempts to deceive them. That is the one good reason for supporting the Bill on Second Reading, and that is why we shall not be pressing for a Division.
There is no question but that confusion has been caused by candidates deliberately seeking to deceive and take advantage by getting on to the coat-tails of a well-recognised party or personality. I shall come to that later. The Bill is at least an intention to improve the position concerning the name of the party.
At the last general election, my former colleague Rod Richards, was opposed by a candidate who stood not only as Rod Richards, but for the so-called Conservatory party.
Although Rod Richards obtained an injunction on the misleading person or name, the candidate was still able to stand for the Conservatory party under his real name. There have been other well-known cases, including the case in the European elections in which a Literal Democrat stood. All parties have suffered as a result of those deceptions. I am on record as having sought a change in the position, which is why I give one cheer, at any rate, for the Bill and welcome its intention to prevent the confusion of the electorate.
However, we should be in no doubt about why the Bill is being introduced. It is not, first and foremost, to prevent the confusion that we have had in the past. The Home Office has seen many such problems. The Bill is being introduced because of the demands of proportional representation and, in particular, of a list system whereby parties, not candidates, are voted for. In the first sentence of the press release announcing the Bill, the Home Secretary said:
A formal register of political parties is essential for the smooth operation of the proposed PR systems for the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the European Parliament.
The Bill has been introduced for the wrong reasons: to enable the introduction of a list system and an additional member system, which I and, I suspect, the Home Secretary find objectionable.
In Scotland, there will be 73 members elected by first past the post and 56 additional members. In Wales, there will 40 members elected by first past the post and 20 additional members. The additional members will be based on the old European constituencies, which will, in any event, disappear next year. We shall then have a new regional system of members without constituencies for the European elections. If ever there was an example of the Government making it up as they go along, it is this. The position may be bad enough already, but it would be worse if such a system were adopted for Westminster. On that point, I have hopes of making common cause with the Home Secretary.
Up to now, as the Home Secretary said, we have had a rather vicarious political relationship that dates back to the last time that I was in the shadow Cabinet. That was in Margaret Thatcher's first shadow Cabinet, when I was shadow Secretary of State for Social Services. I know that I do not look that old. The Minister opposite me was the then Barbara Castle, a left-wing, self-avowed socialist—all the words that today induce a collective wince on the Government Benches. The Secretary of State's special adviser at that time was none other than the left-wing, socialist gentleman who is now the Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). Politically, they were so close that he inherited her seat.
The reason that I mention that—apart from being gratuitously offensive—is that in my first debate on pensions, which the Home Secretary may remember, the then Secretary of State, supported, I presume, by her adviser, hastened away from the Chamber for a press conference on the referendum on Europe. She, perhaps with the right hon. Gentleman's support, was passionately opposed to entry into the European Community. Never mind the single currency—they did not want to go into the Community at all.

Mr. Swayne: Hear, hear.

Sir Norman Fowler: I know that I am carrying at least one of my hon. Friends with me.
At that time, the Cabinet had decided that Ministers could campaign on either side of the question. As we look ahead, therefore, we know that with the right hon. Gentleman's experience and his influence in Cabinet, he will be able to persuade his colleagues that if there is to be a referendum on proportional representation, Government Ministers will be able to follow their conscience. I look forward to the Home Secretary campaigning with us on that issue in favour of first past the post. I have waited 25 years to be on the same side as the right hon. Gentleman, and that is the fairest offer that I can make him, although I see that his natural discretion keeps him very much in his seat at this point.
Irrespective of whether that referendum happens, there are basic questions to be asked about the Bill. The first arises straight from the additional member system that the Government are introducing and has been raised by Michael Dyer, a lecturer in the department of politics at Aberdeen university. He raises the question whether political parties that are likely to receive few additional members should not create or foster surrogate parties. He uses the example of Scotland at the last general election—not, I emphasise, the next election. On that basis, Labour would have had such a high number of first-past-the-post victories that it would receive no additional members, or almost none.
Mr. Dyer goes on to offer a number of solutions. One, which he calls "a greater prize", involves Labour forging a pact with another party and delivering its list vote to that party. That would leave that party heavily dependent on continued Labour good will, rendering it less likely to desert a Labour-dominated coalition in difficult times.
The point that relates directly to the Bill is a further example that involves Labour, or its voters, forming an understanding with a so-called Independent Labour party that had received no first-past-the-post votes. Mr. Dyer estimates that if all Labour voters supported the ILP list, no fewer than 35 of the 56 additional members would be elected and, of course, the majority would be overwhelming. Equally, the spirit and principle of the change would be utterly defeated.
The question is, what can be done to prevent such a situation from arising. I am aware of the assurance given by a Minister in another place, but the question is not simply what is the Government's intention or even what is the Labour party's intention. We are making law. Doubtless we could create other scenarios in which other parties took similar actions, but the question is how abuse can be prevented.
The second question is even more relevant. The 1947 committee said that
the nomination paper should describe the candidate and not the cause",
but there have been well-known examples of attempts to deceive the electorate. I mentioned the case of Rod Richards, and the Home Secretary mentioned that of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), when Peter Rubery-Hayward decided to rechristen himself Sir Nicholas Lyell. As it happened, injunctions were granted on both occasions.
In the 1983 general election, there was the famous case of a man who changed his name by deed poll to Margaret Thatcher and declared the address of his flat to be henceforth Downing Street mansions, while an associate changed his name to Ronald Reagan in order to act as his


agent. In that case, the returning officer declared the paper invalid, on the grounds that it was an abuse of the right of nomination, and was an obvious unreality.
A more difficult case was that of Roy Jenkins. Unlikely as it may seem, someone had the temerity to seek to impersonate that grand figure.

Mr. Straw: Impossible.

Sir Norman Fowler: Almost impossible, but perhaps not in name.

Mr. Nigel Evans: A good Welshman.

Sir Norman Fowler: If he is a good Welshman, I am a Dutchman.
In 1981, an artificial Roy Jenkins attempted to fight the Warrington by-election, but the returning officer ruled that his nomination was invalid. However, in November 1982, in the Glasgow, Hillhead by-election, the artificial Roy Jenkins was allowed to stand, on the grounds that the returning officer there felt that the name Jenkins had been used for some nine months and no objection was received in time from the real Roy Jenkins.
As I understand the Bill, we shall legislate to make it more difficult for political parties to be confused, but there is no similar provision for individuals. We intend to leave it to the existing processes, whether the returning officer or the courts. In other words—the Home Secretary should take this point to heart—if legislation closes the door on political party deception, there is a danger that all attempts will move to personal candidate deception. We shall have turned the position of the 1947 committee on its head.
However, that position raises a further question about the position of individual returning officers. Self-evidently, different returning officers have made different interpretations of the law. The Bill is intended to set general rules to prevent the public's being deceived. However, what is being done to ensure that the policy of individual returning officers is the same as that of the registrar of political parties? How do we ensure a uniform policy throughout the country?
The detail of many Bills is crucial; never has that been truer than of the Bill before us. The Bill is presented as a voluntary system of registration, but, as the Home Secretary freely admitted, it is voluntary only if a party wants to forgo the advantage of party political broadcasts and the help that it can receive for the costs of security at party conferences. If it wants those advantages, it must register.
Equally, there is the question of appeal from the registrar's decision—the point rightly raised by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East.

Mr. Syms: West.

Sir Norman Fowler: I beg your pardon; I meant my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne).
The registrar grants an application for inclusion in the register unless the proposed registered name would be likely to result in the party being confused by voters with

a party already registered. What does that mean? I do not make a party point, but one could make a sensible case that a candidate who stands as "Old Labour" is distinguishing himself from the present Administration. Equally, one could make a sensible case that a person who wants to stand as an "Independent Conservative" is giving himself a sensible description. From experience as party chairman, I can vouch for the presence of many independent Conservatives in the mid-1990s—and Independent Conservatives is only one of the descriptions that I gave them at the time. Probably, however, none of those descriptions would be allowed under these rules.
Who will settle these disputes, and who will settle the question of symbols? I really want to know that. I am deeply sceptical about the need for symbols; disputes are bound to break out as a result. The Home Secretary looks forward to our having 100 parties; the mind boggles as to what they will be. If we have 100 political parties jostling around, some will tend to push to make their symbols as provocative, or outrageous, as they possibly can. Who settles those disputes?
In short—this is a short debate—we shall want to explore a range of questions in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) raised another important point during the Home Secretary's speech. I have said that we shall not oppose the Bill on Second Reading because, obviously, we support the principle of trying to reduce confusion among the electorate—deception of the voters. However, we wish to reserve our Third Reading position, depending on the answers that we receive. By definition, we do not want legislation that makes the position worse or produces glaring loopholes in the law.
That apart, it would be wrong of me not to warn the Home Secretary that, in my belief—which, I suspect, he substantially shares—we are embarking on a dangerous electoral journey. This is but one small part of a much bigger picture. My greatest worry is about the way in which, step by step, we are moving away from the constituency basis of our democracy. In my view, the constituency link, which enables constituents to hold individual elected representatives to account, is right in principle and has served the country well.
I find the list system—whereby the public are asked to vote for parties, not individuals, and where control can easily pass to the centre and not be held at the local level—objectionable. I suspect that the Bill will raise some of the questions that will become part of the national debate in months to come, and I suspect that, when the issues have been properly exposed, the public will deplore the direction in which the Government have chosen to take the country.

Mr. Martin Linton: I am the representative of the constituency that is, in many ways, the cause of all the trouble. In Wandsworth, in 1967, when each party had four vacancies to fill, a Liberal candidate named Pritchard stood against a distinguished Labour councillor in the area, Sir Norman Prichard, and received 4,000 votes more than the three other Liberal candidates. As the Labour candidate named Prichard was distinguished and popular, it was an inescapable conclusion that the confusion over names had misled 4,000 voters. As a result, the Representation of the People Act 1949 was amended by the Government of the day, to allow a six-word description of candidates.
That reform was very reasonable, but, in many cases, the description has become not as much a description as an advertisement, a form of abuse, a campaigning message or an attempt to confuse. Last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) spoke about the terrible distress caused to some of his constituents when they discovered that when they voted "New Labour" they had voted, not for him, but for an unofficial candidate—so much so that one of his constituents burst into tears, and another ate her ballot paper rather than put it into the urn.
I very much welcome the Home Secretary's assurances about the meaning of the grounds—set out in clause 3—on which names can be refused, especially his explanation of clause 3(1)(d), which, as I understand it, refers mainly to words likely to stir up racial hatred, and the expression "prohibited by order" in clause 3(1)(f), which refers mainly to words such as "royal". I assume that the main casualties of this clause will be those parties that set out deliberately to confuse. At the last election, some candidates stood as Literal Democrats, Conservatories, and Conversatives, and many others stood under the inaccurate title of New Labour. Many other categories of parties may or may not be affected by the measure, and I would appreciate further explanation from the Minister.
If candidates are allowed to use a six-word description without registering as a party, will they be allowed to give themselves party names although they are not registered? I refer not to the Monster Raving Loony party—which I have no doubt will register as a fully fledged political party—but to parties such as Happiness Stan's Free to Party party, the Juice party, the Rizz party, the Ronnie the Rhino party, the Sub-genius party and the Teddy Bear Alliance party.

Mr. Swayne: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in reality, what constitutes a political party is democratic legitimacy? Having members elected to Parliament is what designates a political party. Under this legislation, anyone may be the leader of a political party in much the same way as anyone can buy a company off the shelf and become a company director.

Mr. Linton: I do not think that one must win an election in order to qualify as a political party. The hon. Gentleman cannot seriously believe that—if he does, I take it that he will stand at the next election as a candidate for the Sub-genius party.
At the last election, we also encountered the problem of candidates using their six-word descriptions as forms of advertising. I do not know whether that is covered by the Bill. For example, the Mongolian Barbecue Great Place to Party party strikes me as being a commercial message rather than a party description. The West Cheshire College in Crisis was clearly an attempt to use six words to make a point—I do not know whether it is correct. There were also a few lonely hearts-type candidates. One candidate described himself as Black Haired Medium Build Caucasian Male and there was also an Independently Beautiful party candidate. I look forward to hearing whether those examples will be affected by the Bill.
There is also the question of the commission of an offence. Several parties, such as the Legalise Cannabis party and the New Millennium New Way Hemp party,

could, on a strict reading of the legislation, be in jeopardy. Several parties at the last election used descriptions that some people may consider offensive. Most of them were what might be called anti-political parties whose titles were attempts to deride other candidates on the ballot paper. Some examples were the Common Sense Sick of Politicians party, the Lord Byro versus the Scallywag Tories party and the People in Slough Shunning Useless Politician party—whose name I think was chosen mainly for its potential as an acronym. One candidate, whose surname must have begun with "W" or "Y", stood as a candidate for None of the Above Parties party.
I do not imagine that the Government want to use the legislation against such parties, but it would be useful to have a better idea of what the word "offensive" is intended to mean to acting returning officers. I hope that the tradition in this country of having not entirely serious electoral candidates, such as Screaming Lord Sutch and the Monster Raving Loony party, will not be lost. It may give our democracy a bad name sometimes when people from overseas see the joke candidates standing behind the serious ones, but I would hate to think that this Bill could be used to limit people's freedom to such an extent that they were prevented from standing in elections.

Mr. Bob Russell: I should like, at the outset, to offer the apologies of my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who has had to return to his constituency because his son has been taken to hospital. I am pleased to say that he is now recovering.
It is difficult to see how any democrat could object to the principles behind the Bill. It is obvious that the details must be discussed, but there is nothing of substance to which we can object. The Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill, which we believe will allow political parties to register and protect their names and logos. My party, above all others, has reason to support such legislation.
The Bill relates also to the proportional systems that will be used for elections to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh assembly and the European Parliament next year, and it will allow registered parties to provide lists of candidates. I agree to some extent with the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) in that it is disappointing that voters in those elections will not be able to select candidates from within the party list or across the parties, but the Liberal Democrats nevertheless welcome the new systems as an improvement on the unfair first-past-the-post system. We look forward to seeing further improvements.
It is pleasing to see that the Bill extends to local government elections, although they will use first past the post. The debate so far has concentrated on Westminster, but I believe that local government will also benefit greatly from the proposals. Elections to this place will also use first past the post. Let us hope that the experience of using fairer voting systems in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and Europe will encourage people to vote in the promised referendum to change the system that is used here.
The use of the registrar of companies to avoid creating a separate registrar of political parties is appropriate, but the Bill leaves to local returning officers the important decision whether a candidate not representing a registered


party can use a description on the ballot paper. Unlike the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton), I shall not give an exhaustive list, but we have heard of and seen such candidates. I wonder whether they help the democratic process—although they certainly liven things up. The arrangement is likely to lead to inconsistent use of names on ballot papers in different parts of the country and will almost certainly cause disputes and legal action. As the Bill progresses, I hope that those matters can be examined afresh and, perhaps, resolved.
The Liberal Democrats have two particular reasons for welcoming the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) knows only too well the problem caused by candidates using misleading names. I do not think that any democrat would approve of what happened in my hon. Friend's constituency. My hon. Friend stood as the Liberal Democrat candidate in the 1994 European elections for the seat of Devon and East Plymouth and lost to a Conservative candidate by 800 votes. A previously unknown candidate stood as a Literal Democrat and got 10,000 votes.
I think that hon. Members will agree that it is extremely unlikely that 10,000 people chose to vote for a candidate who had done no campaigning and had no published principles. The Liberal Democrats were thus deprived of our third Member of the European Parliament. However, it was good to see my hon. Friend go on to defeat the Conservative Member of Parliament at the general election and win a seat in the House—Europe's loss is our gain.
The same Literal Democrat candidate who defeated my hon. Friend in Devon almost cost my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) his seat. At the 1997 general election, my hon. Friend won by an impressive two votes. A court later declared the result null and void and my hon. Friend went on to win a by-election this year with one of the largest majorities in Parliament—there may be a moral in that story. The Literal Democrat from Devon stood in Winchester in 1997 as the Liberal Democrat Top Choice for Parliament and won 640 votes—most of which were almost certainly intended for my hon. Friend.
The Bill would not allow parties with names similar to registered parties to register, but there may be confusion when unregistered candidates seek to use names similar to those of registered parties. That needs to be clarified. The Bill does not deal with the problem of candidates using a name that is likely to confuse voters. We have already heard several examples of confusion deliberately caused by candidates. Each involved parliamentary elections. There is only one Andrew Mackinlay, but as has been pointed out there have been several Margaret Thatchers and Roy Jenkins. Such confusion is not dealt with in the Bill.
The Bill would not prevent candidates from using terms that may cause confusion with registered parties in their election literature; it regulates only the use of names on the ballot paper. However, confusion occurs not just in parliamentary elections, but in local elections. Two years ago, in the borough of Colchester, four candidates stood as Conservatives in a deliberate attempt to undermine the Conservative party campaign.

Mr. Straw: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, the Bill applies to local government elections, just as it applies to national elections.

Mr. Russell: I welcome that clarification. The example that I shall give may have cost the Conservatives control of Essex county council, for which a by-election is taking place today. At the county council elections last year, a rogue Conservative—I think that Conservative Members will agree with that term—stood, and split the vote, and a Liberal Democrat took the seat. With Essex county council being finely balanced, the result of today's by-election could well alter the political control of the council.
It was expected that the Bill would include provisions on the funding of political parties. We support the Home Secretary's decision to await the report of the Neill committee before such legislation is introduced.
We welcome the use of party emblems on the ballot paper and the fact that Welsh parties will be able to register both a Welsh and an English name and to use both on the ballot paper. Registered parties should also be allowed to register regional variations of emblems to allow bilingual emblems in Wales and, for example, to allow parties in Scotland to have a different emblem from their emblem in another part of the UK. That may be useful for the Conservatives north of the border.
Can the Home Secretary tell us whether the emblems will be printed in the party colours? If so, perhaps there could be variations in tone to indicate where candidates stood in the various political parties, especially under the list system. I congratulate the person who designed the ballot paper on the good sense and humour that it reflects—the good sense to put the Liberal Democrat candidate at the top and the Conservative at the bottom. Typically for new Labour, its candidate has a hyphenated name. The Conservative emblem seems to be flopping over more than usual—misrepresentation?

Mr. Sanders: It is leaning too far to the right.

Mr. Russell: Perhaps the Conservative emblem is up to date.
Another issue that is not covered in the Bill is the gender balancing of candidates on lists in proportional systems. Liberal Democrats are using a system known as zipping for the European elections; across the UK, half of the Liberal Democrat lists will be headed by a man and half by a woman. That is equality. On each list, men and women will alternate. The gender at the top of each list has been chosen according to electoral prospect, which should ensure that one half of Liberal Democrat MEPs are women. I should have thought that the Government would welcome that.
A system of gender balance was agreed with Labour in November 1995 for elections to the Scottish Parliament but, because of the legal uncertainties and the lack of exemption from sex discrimination legislation in the Scotland Bill, it is unlikely to go ahead.
Legal opinion on gender balance is inconclusive. We had, therefore, hoped that the Bill would include a widening of the existing exemptions under sex discrimination legislation to include party lists in elections under the proportional representation system. The Government seem reluctant to do that, despite the 1995


electoral agreement between Labour and the Liberal Democrats in Scotland. It would be possible to exempt political parties only for the first proportional elections, to give women a good opportunity to achieve fair representation.
The Bill is another part of the constitutional reform of the United Kingdom. It will improve democracy in elections by preventing spoiler candidates from distorting results. It will allow party logos to appear on the ballot paper, which will assist voters in placing their votes for the party of their choice. I am disappointed that my former Essex man colleague—the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield—cannot see the sense of that.
Liberal Democrats want an independent electoral commission to be established to oversee the running of elections and election campaigns. The commission would also have control of boundary reviews, the monitoring of election expenses and the allocation of broadcasting time, and would remove the regulation and control of elections from politicians. The Bill is only a first step towards the fairer management of elections. I hope that the momentum for reform will extend to the electoral system for this place to provide for a fairer distribution of seats.

Mr. Robert Syms: I am one of those odd individuals who collect election results. I have the various volumes of F. W. S. Craig going back to 1832. They usually contain a health warning that, although he has put down the results, he has added a description of the parties that may not have been recognised by the candidates. For example, following the split in the Liberal party in the 1880s, some candidates are listed as Liberals and some as Liberal Unionists. The distinction required historical research.
We are unusual as a nation in that Parliament developed earlier than strong political parties, so there has always been a strong element of individualism in our political process. People have always been able to vote on a geographical basis, for individuals whom they trust with the description or political label sometimes worn quite lightly, certainly in earlier years. As time has gone by, the political process has become more intrusive.
The debate in the 1960s, as the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) said, concerned political descriptions, which Sir Richard Sharples pointed out could be used to mislead people. We have heard several examples today. Nevertheless, I believe that a description of the political party for which the candidate is standing is a positive development. For example, in local government elections in multi-member wards, if one of the candidates is stupid enough to state that he is a farmer or a company director rather than use his political label he usually runs well below the other candidates with a political description.
A description helps voters to make a decision. We in political life like to think that every elector has had a leaflet or two and has been canvassed, but, in reality, people turn up at the polling station with little idea who the candidates are until they read the ballot paper. At least that gives them the comfort of knowing that they are voting for the candidate who best suits their political views.
I welcome the Bill as an opportunity for us to deal with abuses—Literal Democrat is the one on which we focus most—but it is no panacea. In Committee and in later stages, we shall have to test many of the propositions in it to ensure that we get it right.
The requirement that a description be no more than six words long is important, but when a party registers perhaps it should register all the other terms or uses of its name. For example, we are not only the Conservative party, but the Conservative and Unionist party, the Tory party, we can be Scottish Conservative or Welsh Conservative, and some people tell me that we are even the European People's party on occasions. It is important that registration should cover all those terms. I know that there is a party allied to the Labour party called the Co-operative party. Would that party register separately, or under the umbrella of the Labour party? All those matters need to be tested.
The registrar's worst difficulty will probably lie in determining which party can use the term Unionist. In Northern Ireland, the majority community uses numerous versions of that term, with prefixes or suffixes. That causes a good deal of confusion.
I mentioned earlier the issue of registration depriving people of broadcasting rights, and the issue of Sinn Fein. I am pleased that there is to be a Committee under the Speaker to give advice. Whatever we may say about looking ahead, circumstances will arise that no one will have anticipated, and it is sensible to establish a Committee that enables political parties to give their views to the registrar.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) referred to the difficulties of the additional member system and pointed out that, under a list system—as has been suggested by one or two academics—it may be possible to mislead people into voting for the alter ego of a major party, particularly one that wins all the first-past-the-post seats. I was reassured by what the Home Secretary said about disqualifying candidates using names very similar to those of existing political parties. It is important that people who have voted initially under the first-past-the-post system and then under the list system are not misled into voting for what they mistakenly believe to be an official party. How the electoral system that will be used in Scotland, Wales and indeed London is received will depend largely on whether people feel that it has operated fairly and has not deceived the electorate.
I want to raise a couple of issues that I raised when we debated the European Parliamentary Elections Bill. The nomination of nominees for the European parliamentary elections will stand from one election to the next: for five years, until 2004. There will be no by-elections; if someone dies or resigns, the next person on the list will inherit the seat.
It is one thing for someone who has been sworn in and has become a member of an assembly—particularly a European assembly—to decide after a few years to switch to a different party. Three years after an election, however, the first reserve on the list might decide to stop being a Liberal Democrat and join the Labour party. When a vacancy occurred, under the European Parliamentary Elections Bill, the returning officer would have to offer the post to the next available candidate. I assume that the system would give the candidate the


right to refuse, but it would not discriminate against someone who had left the political party involved. It is possible that the first reserve on a Labour, Liberal or Conservative list could inherit a seat without being a member of the relevant political party.
Given a proportional list allowing people to vote Conservative, Liberal Democrat or Labour—a system in which proportionality is intended to be the key—it would be very odd if someone who had resigned or been expelled from a political party could still inherit a seat. Five years is a long time in this context. We should not forget that such an arrangement is entirely outside our experience: under the British political system, a candidate is elected or ceases to be the candidate. An ex-candidate—which many of us have been—is very much an "ex". What happens if, four years after an election, someone who is no longer a member of a political party—perhaps owing to expulsion from it—inherits a seat? Will that person have the right to take the seat?
In New Zealand, which has a system of mixed member proportionality, some of those elected under a list system have switched parties, having given undertakings to their respective parties that they would not do so. In a famous case, a member of the Alliance became an independent. An electoral registration Bill promoted by the Labour party in New Zealand proposes that someone elected under a list system who switches to another party ought, in effect, to be resigned from Parliament. I do not think that that Bill will become law, and the issue is controversial, but we should ask whether, if people are voting for a party rather than an individual, the individual has the right to switch. Such action entirely destroys the purpose of proportionality.
There are problems with the European parliamentary system that we have implemented. There may be problems with the additional member system—that will depend on how well the Bill works—but I welcome the broad thrust of the Bill. Unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield, I also welcome the introduction of symbols or emblems.
Before I was a candidate in Poole, I was a candidate in Walsall, North and encountered a difficulty that was outside my experience, as I came from Wiltshire. There were wards with a high proportion of Asians who did not speak English. In such circumstances—especially in local elections, which involve multi-member wards—ballot papers have to be produced saying "Vote for 7, 9 or 14". Symbols or emblems would enable those who do not speak English to exercise their democratic right. Blackburn may be similar, but it is certainly true of parts of the midlands. Politicians who wish to mislead people may do so by messing up the order on the ballot paper: it has been done. Emblems may well prove beneficial, especially for ethnic minorities.
Overall, I welcome the registration proposals, although it is rather sad that we have reached this stage—it is an inevitable consequence of the dreadful PR systems that we are introducing. We have an opportunity to make politics more transparent and honest and to rid ourselves of some of the discrepancies from which members of all parties have suffered.
There has already been one volunteer for the Standing Committee; another may be standing here.

Mr. Adrian Sanders: There is a long and not entirely dishonourable tradition in British politics of candidates using descriptions on ballot papers to make a point. My favourite is the description used by one by-election candidate—"Reclassify Sun Newspaper as a Comic". Other candidates have formed their own parties or pressure groups to promote issues or highlight causes: the late Bill Boakes and Sir James Goldsmith come to mind, as do the numerous stop this or stop that campaign groups formed at both local and parliamentary level.
Candidates who have fallen out with their parties, either locally or nationally, have stood as independents in the Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat interest. Others have disputed a change in a party's constitution and claimed to be members of that party's heir or successor. Social Democrat and Liberal candidates have done that in recent times.
I understood that the Bill's purpose was not to outlaw any such legitimate descriptions, but to prevent people from deliberately frustrating the democratic process by confusing voters with lookalike descriptions. Having read the Bill, however, I fear that its effects could go much further than was intended. I have a number of questions to ask the Minister. I hope that he will be able to reassure us that the specific problem of spoiler candidates is the Bill's only target.
Spoiler candidates are thieves: they steal people's votes. They violate our democracy, and legislation to outlaw them is long overdue. I know from personal experience in the 1994 European election how it feels to be a candidate for the party for which a majority of the votes were intended.
My loss, however, was not as great as that of those who filled in their ballot papers and left the polling station believing that they had voted for a Liberal Democrat rather than a Literal Democrat. The descriptions sound different, but they look the same to someone who glances quickly at a ballot paper.
The loss felt by those 10,000 voters was expressed in letters and radio phone-ins at the time, in terms used more often by people who have been recently burgled or assaulted. They felt violated—that something intangible had been taken from them without their permission. For them, it was not only that someone they had specifically voted against was going to represent them for the next five years, but that their rights had been taken away. They will be among the first to welcome legislation that prevents such a situation—as will I—but my concern is with the scope of the Bill and whether it would prevent someone from standing as a Unionist, Liberal or Co-op candidate if the Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour parties registered those titles as their own.
What will happen in Northern Ireland in relation to the competing claims on the Unionist description? Would the Bill prevent a person from standing as an independent Conservative, an independent Liberal Democrat or an independent Labour candidate'? Could an organisation register as the Independent party? If that were to happen, perhaps prospective council candidates would have to approach the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) for their voucher, although the Home Secretary made it fairly clear that he felt that there would be one generic term for independents—but what if there were a dispute between independent candidates?
I am concerned about the fate of residents or ratepayer candidates. We may get both a Redbridge residents association and a Redbridge tenants and residents association wishing to register. What would be the adjudication then?
Is it right for someone to stand as an independent and suffix their leaning or political affiliation to their description? It is extraordinarily dishonest for people to stand as independents when they are from a political party and often align with it in a council chamber after the election.

Mr. Swayne: Does the hon. Gentleman accept—I entirely support him in his grievance—that that is effectively dealt with in schedule 2? Schedule 2 is all that is necessary to meet his principal grievance.

Mr. Sanders: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman quite understood what I was saying. I was saying that independents should be able to use a suffix to show their leaning or political affiliation and I ask the Minister to clarify whether they will be able to do so. I do not believe that right hon. and hon. Members have the exclusive right to determine the legitimacy of those in dispute with a party that is represented here—no matter that, under the Bill, I would have benefited from more than 1,000 Liberal votes when I have a majority of just 12. People have an inherent right to describe their politics as they wish, and I fear from my reading of the Bill—I hope that I shall be put right—that that right will be taken away.
If the Bill could be misused by Westminster-based parties to prevent what I view as the strength of our pluralistic democracy, it is a bad Bill which, rather than clarifying choices for electors, will reduce their choice. I seek the Minister's reassurance on that and the other points that I have raised.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: I do not intend to detain the House long. Indeed, I do not believe that the Bill deserves to detain the House long; I am afraid that my view of the Bill is different from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms).
There seems to be something sinister about a Bill that describes itself as the Registration of Political Parties Bill. There is something vaguely totalitarian about the notion of registering a political party. Of course, the Home Secretary has told us that it is not like that at all—the Bill is in fact a mouse and the kernel of the Bill is schedule 2; that is really what it is all about.
I accept the necessity of schedule 2 and entirely agree with the thrust of the remarks by the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders), including those on the particular grievance that has arisen. I accept entirely that schedule 2 is necessary. We need to amend the Representation of the People Act 1990 in that way. I hope that, when we come to Third Reading, schedule 2 will be all that is left of the Bill, although I somehow doubt it. The real agenda behind the Bill was revealed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler): this Bill is all about the party list system.
We have relatively few political parties in this country. I know that the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) rehearsed a great long list of political parties, but I reject the notion that they are political parties at all. As I said

to him, in this country, what constitutes a political party is democratic legitimacy. It is having Members of Parliament.

Jackie Ballard: I am shocked that the definition that the hon. Gentleman gives of a political party is that it has Members of Parliament. Would he not say that the Green party, for example, is a political party?

Mr. Swayne: I am a reasonable man and I realise that I have overstated the case. I am prepared to accept that the Green party is a political party and to adjust my definition. There are other political parties, but those on the list that was rehearsed by the hon. Member for Battersea do not constitute political parties. We have, and I stand by this, relatively few political parties. I accept that there is a Green party and a United Kingdom Independence party, but such parties are relatively few. We do not need a mechanism for the registration of political parties in the same way that we need a mechanism for the registration of companies.
We need a mechanism for the registration of companies because there are so many. There are not so many political parties. Are we anticipating a great influx of political parties? I suspect that that is the reality. Party list systems give rise to a plethora of political parties. I fear that there is something in the fact that the companies registration mechanism has been selected as the mechanism for the registration of political parties.

Mr. Syms: Part of the problem of modern politics in the television age is that frivolous candidates are increasing. That is far more of a factor since television, satellite and everything else came into being.

Mr. Swayne: I accept that entirely and I hope that schedule 2 will ensure that such frivolous candidates will not be able to abuse our procedures so as to usurp the votes that were intended to be cast for serious candidates, but there is no mechanism that can rule out frivolous candidates standing at an election. In a moment, I shall say a few words about frivolity, of which my hon. Friend may care to take note.
The selection of the mechanism for the registration of companies as the mechanism for the registration of political parties strikes me as unfortunate. As I said in an intervention, there is something unsavoury about meeting a citizen of the United States to be told that he is vice-president of a particular company. Anyone, it seems, can be a vice-president of a company, much in the way as, increasingly, anyone in this country can become a company director, having paid £100 and bought the title off the shelf.
As a consequence of the Bill, anyone can be a leader of a political party.

Mr. Paddy Tipping: It may come to that.

Mr. Swayne: Indeed.
The purpose of my intervention during the Home Secretary's speech was to highlight that. I asked him what would happen if a political party registered and then fielded no candidates and acquired no votes. He said, "That is entirely proper. Nothing would happen at all." One would therefore he able to become the leader of a


political party, and acquire the—quite false—authority of sitting on the "Today" programme and being interviewed as the leader of a political party, without having any intention of securing any political legitimacy. Allowing that to happen seems quite unnecessary.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): Will the hon. Gentleman help the House? As the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) has just held up a note up for the hon. Gentleman to read, does that mean that he is in imminent danger of becoming leader of his own political party?

Mr. Swayne: The note concerned a domestic matter that my hon. Friend and I discussed earlier.
I come now to the matter of frivolity, as there seems to be a measure of mirth in the House.

Mr. Eric Forth: Before my hon. Friend moves on to frivolity—a subject close to his heart—will he tell us whether he agrees that the Bill contains not only a sinister element, which he rightly pointed out, but a deeply patronising one? Does the Bill not assume that voters are so dim, undiscriminating or unable to make up their own mind on the legitimacy of candidates or political parties that they need to be spoon fed and nannied throughout the electoral process? Does he agree that that is a most unfortunate development, which we hope will be resisted at all costs?

Mr. Swayne: My right hon. Friend is entirely correct. However, the problem is even worse, as the trend that he mentioned will be assisted by the Bill.
A principal difference between myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Poole is that I can think of nothing more dispiriting than logos appearing on the ballot paper. It is the dumbing down of British politics, in which candidates are to sell themselves in much the same way as they might sell soap powder. Only one symbol should legitimately appear on a ballot paper: an "X" marked against the name of one candidate. In the case of New Forrest, West, that name is mine.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poole was strenuous in attempting to be in line with the new politics—the consensual attitude that is engendered by proportional systems, four of which we have already legislated on. I was therefore struggling for something complimentary to say about the Bill. However, the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) has assisted me, as I now realise that I welcome in the Bill what is not in it. The hon. Gentleman wished that the Bill would empower the Liberal Democrats to circumvent the United Kingdom's very proper anti-discrimination and equal opportunity legislation, to persist with their extraordinary agenda of political correctness.

Mr. Sanders: Will the hon. Gentleman define his comment, at the very beginning of his speech, about not wishing "to detain the House for very long"?

Mr. Swayne: I have been fairly reasonable, so far, and certainly do not intend to detain the House for much longer. Were the hon. Gentleman to remain in his seat, I should be quicker.
The demand of the hon. Member for Colchester for a system allowing his party to circumvent equal opportunities legislation is rooted in the Liberal Democrats' attitude—their political correctness—which itself seems to be rooted in an attitude that pervaded the councils of the early Church—that men and women, the male and the female, are effectively two species that have antithetical interests and cannot be represented one by the other. The logical conclusion of such a system is that there has to be an equal number of male and female candidates to secure proper political representation. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is a most ridiculous argument, and I welcome the fact that the Bill does not endorse it.
The Home Secretary seemed to volunteer me for the Standing Committee that will consider the Bill, but I should certainly not relish the work that the Committee will have to put into it. The Bill seems to have been a very rushed job, and the Committee will have to do a great deal of work to sort it out.

Mr. Forth: I hope that my hon. Friend is not suggesting that the only hon. Members who should serve on Standing Committees are those who are fawningly in favour of some ghastly consensual Bill. I hope that he accepts that the essence of the House includes Standing Committees scrutinising Bills with a proper degree of criticality. If so, does he not agree that—if he can find it within himself—he should offer himself—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that we want to get into a debate on the operation of Standing Committees.

Mr. Swayne: For precisely the reason given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), I was not volunteering myself for the Standing Committee.
The Committee will have so much to do, because the Bill contains so little that is necessary to make it workable. I have already mentioned to the Home Secretary the fact that the Bill contains no mechanism for third parties even to be notified that applications for registration are in prospect. It provides no means by which an application can be published, and therefore brought to the attention of other political parties that might wish to make representations. Nor does it contain an appeal procedure for those whose applications might be refused. All those matters will have to be dealt with.
The Bill is quite inadequate. In clause 10, for example, the question arises whether the "Committee of Members of the House of Commons" will be a Committee of the House. Will it enjoy parliamentary privilege? That matter will have to be sorted out.
I return to the point with which I began my speech. I wish that the Bill consisted of nothing more than schedule 2, which deals with the quite proper concern of the hon. Member for Torbay. The rest of the Bill is necessary as a consequence not of any inadequacy in our current electoral arrangements but of the awful systems that those on the Treasury Bench have in prospect for us.

Mr. Nigel Evans: This has been a short but interesting debate. When he was Home Secretary, James Callaghan said:
I would hope that most people who stand for election would have a proper sense of responsibility. I agree that one cannot wholly rely on that". —[Official Report, 18 December 1968; Vol. 775, c. 1404.]
In "The Times Guide to the House of Commons", when describing the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell), Neil Hamilton and others at the count in Tatton at the general election, Matthew Parris said:
Behind both, towering above them and swaying from side to side in a weird dance, writhed a 7ft being. A 6ft transvestite in 12in platform heels, wearing a birdcage on her head, her face painted with wild shapes and red and green colours, dressed in royal robes, covered with glitter and plastered in £5 notes, 'Miss Moneypenny'—in reality Burnel Penhaul, 32, from Birmingham—was standing for the Miss Moneypenny's Glamorous One Party. Campaigning on the slogan 'Put the tat back into Tatton' she won 128 votes.
I think that that shows how wrong James Callaghan was in 1968. The fact is that, at the most recent general election, a record number of candidates stood, and a record number of candidates lost their deposits.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) said, it was not so many years ago that candidates stood without any label on ballot papers. The changes that are occurring in the United Kingdom electoral system—especially the list system in European elections—make it is absolutely necessary that the registered names of political parties should be protected. Next year, for the first time in this country, people will vote for a political party. That will be their wake-up call on the consequences of proportional representation and the list system.
Not so many years ago, it was important for candidates to get their name known around the constituency. Now it is important for the party name and emblem to be known around the constituency, because that is what people will be voting for. That is not progress for politics in this country.
We have heard about the d'Hondt system. The Home Secretary said that d'Hondt was one of 10 famous Belgians whom he knew. Unless Mr. d'Hondt had nine other family members, I would struggle to name 10 famous Belgians. The d'Hondt system is simple compared with how the Liberal Democrats will select their lists.
The debate is about correcting a problem that we know exists because there have been a few Adjournment debates on it since the election. The problem is the spirit of fighting elections and allowing electors to choose clearly between candidates, individuals and clearly defined political parties. The arrangements have been flouted and, unless we do something, they will be flouted again.
I was once told that politics is not cricket. I guess that it is not. Some people will not play the game as it is intended. Deception is the clear intention of rogue candidates. I am not referring to any of the genuine articles in the House of Commons today. In a less generous mood, I could say a lot about deception and rogue candidates, but I am a generous person.
The speech of the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) before the Christmas Adjournment reminded me of a typical "EastEnders" episode—it was depressing

and without hope to start with and then it got worse. We have an opportunity to end that soap opera. The Bill is not a cure-all and there will still be judicial appeals because of the problem of people changing their names rather than passing off political parties, but it is a step in the right direction.
A quick review of "Dod" or "The Times Guide to the House of Commons" shows why we need to act. There were 3,717 candidates in 659 seats at the 1997 general election. "Dod" lists no fewer than six legitimate left of centre parties: Labour; Labour Co-operative; Scottish Socialist Alliance; the Socialist Labour party; the Socialist party of Great Britain; and the Workers Revolutionary party. That does not even include new Labour, which we all know to be a deception, whichever party uses the description.
In Camberwell and Peckham, the Labour party, the Socialist Labour party, the Socialist party and the Workers Revolutionary party all appeared on the same ballot paper. In Cardiff, South and Penarth, the New Labour candidate, who stood against the Labour candidate, scored 3,942 votes-three times more than the Plaid Cymru candidate. In Blackburn, a Common Sense candidate stood against the Home Secretary. As we know, the electors turned their backs on common sense and voted Labour-we can see the Home Secretary in his place.
A distinction has to be made between the more eccentric candidates—such as the Monster Raving Loony party, the Sub-genius candidate, the Glow Bowling candidate and the Independent OAP—and others with more sinister intentions to deceive, such the Conservatory candidate and other examples that we have heard this evening. I spoke to Rod Richards earlier today about the exercise that he had to go through. We have heard about it many times. A gentleman called David Neal, who did not even change his name by deed poll, gave the returning officer a nomination form filled in under the name Rod Richard. He dropped the letter "s" so that he would appear above Rod Richards on the ballot paper and called himself the Conservatory candidate.
The hon. Member for Winchester mentioned the problem of the 24 hours available for an appeal. In many cases, the candidates have less than 24 hours because they do not find out about the problem immediately.

Mr. Sanders: What is the hon. Gentleman's opinion of changing the order of the candidates for elections by pulling a letter out of a hat to start the list off so that those names beginning with "A" are not guaranteed to be at the top? That would stop the pre-emptive spoiler, whose name is guaranteed to come above the candidate from whom they are trying to steal votes.

Mr. Evans: That would stop me from changing my name by deed poll to Aaron Aaronovitch, so I am not too sure about the idea. The Home Secretary says that a committee is considering the problem. It is one of many issues to be taken account. The hon. Member for Winchester mentioned several in his Adjournment speech, including the time available for postal ballot forms to be submitted, which is ridiculously long in these days of computers.
The problem of changing names—not even by deed poll—such as that Rod Richards faced, desperately needs to be solved. It is a definite problem which is not covered


by the Bill. Even after the judicial review, in which the judge told the impersonator of Rod Richards to stand as David Neal, he was allowed to stand as the Conservatory candidate. He gained almost 600 votes, having changed his name just for the election and without campaigning or being well known in the area. We need to change the situation as soon as possible.
We welcome the Bill, but it is not perfect. We shall table amendments in Committee, as will other parties—perhaps even the Government will do so, remembering the Government of Wales Bill.
I am reassured by the Home Secretary's comment that nobody will be able to register the word "independent". I had thought that the hon. Member for Tatton might be able to register the word in the first round and that people would need to seek his permission to stand under that banner. We need clarification on whether a Conservative party member who was disgruntled with the Conservative party could stand as an Independent Conservative. He would be both a Conservative and independent. The Library has produced figures for the number of people who stood at local elections using the word "independent" before the party name—Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative. There were no figures for the 1998 elections, but in 1996, there were 51 candidates listed as Independent Labour, 30 as Independent Conservative and four as Independent Liberal Democrat. There were also 49 Militant Labour candidates and one Independent Green. We would welcome clarification on that.
We have heard of the Liberal Democrats concerns about the protection of their party's name. There is also the problem of the Liberal party, which had candidates at the general election. The Liberal party is older than the current Liberal Democrats. It has no Members of Parliament, so it would not be able to register the word Liberal in the first round of registration, but I am sure that it would be keen to seek protection for its name. Would that be possible under the Bill?
I should like to go into a little more detail on one issue that has been mentioned. It is not covered in the Bill, but it is important. It relates to the spirit of voting and to the Government of Wales Bill and the Scotland Bill, which are both in another place. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield said that there will be 40 first-past-the-post candidates and 20 additional members in the Welsh assembly, and 73 first-past-the-post candidates and 56 additional members in the Scottish Parliament. Under the d'Hondt system, people will be able to vote for a constituency member and use their second vote for the list system.
The great worry, which was addressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) in Committee on the Government of Wales Bill, is that the split ticket will be abused. Alter ego parties could stand, and the spirit of the d'Hondt system would be totally destroyed. In reply to my right hon. Friend, the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), said:
"I thank the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) for advancing new clause 35 … We acknowledge the points that he has made and I concede that there may be scope for collusion between and within parties to exploit the two-ballot structure of the additional member system in the manner that he described. Such cynical manipulation … would be an affront to the electorate and

would undermine the democratic credibility of the elected body … If that were to happen in Wales, it would not reflect well on the guilty parties."—[Official Report, 2 March 1998; Vol. 307, c. 804–05.]
To return to the quote of Jim Callaghan, we might all hope that people standing for parliamentary elections would play the game, but it does not always work that way. We cannot say what will happen to political parties that might try to use and abuse the system.
For instance, in Scotland, the Labour party sometimes stands as the Labour Co-operative party. What is to prevent the Labour party from fighting constituencies as the Labour party and list-system seats as the Labour Co-operative party? The Labour party would not be the only party able to do so. We have heard that Plaid Cymru is also to be known as the Party of Wales. It could stand as Plaid Cymru for constituencies and as the Party of Wales under the list system.
When we argued against the d'Hondt system in the first place, we were told to be quiet and to be grateful for it, as the Government were being extremely generous because no Conservative Members represent constituencies in Scotland and Wales. We can hardly be grateful if the system is open to such abuse. Fine words from the Government are well and good, but we need guarantees to ensure that loopholes are closed. We shall have to return to that matter in Committee.
I recently spoke to members of Charter 88 about their attitude to the Bill. They have major concerns about the fact that there is no appeal structure. We know that the registrar will be able to seek guidance from the Speaker's Committee, and that he can accept, ignore or overrule such guidance as he thinks appropriate. However, someone representing a potential political party has no right of appeal. Are the Government prepared to consider that matter in Committee, so that anyone who feels any grievance has a proper right of appeal? That is very important.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield also mentioned the importance to be given to electoral returning officers. Time and again, we have heard how returning officers did not want to become involved in making adjudications. Once nominations were submitted, and they were valid, that was it. They did not want to get involved in whether a candidate was really whom they claimed to be; a name is submitted and it is accepted. That is why there has been so much recourse to the courts. Going to court is expensive and stressful for individuals, political parties and local authorities, which must defend the adjudication. Are we to be assured that the 659 electoral returning officers will be properly guided to ensure uniformity, so that, if somebody is turned down as a candidate in one area, it will be extremely unlikely—indeed, rare—that that person will be able to stand elsewhere or that somebody else will be able to stand under exactly the same name?
The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) mentioned some of the strange, weird and wonderful parties that stood at the general election. We know that the Secretary of State will have powers under the Bill to ban certain words from ballot papers. If, for instance, somebody tried to stand for a Legalise Cannabis Now party, would he be able to take a view on that, given that the message is in the party name? We know that, once the election campaign starts, people may campaign on all sorts of issues, but we should bear in mind the fact that, under


clause 3(1)(f), the Secretary of State, by order, will be able to ban all sorts of names. Does he expect to use that power a great deal? If so, in what circumstances?
We welcome the Bill. I know that many of us are keen to serve on the Committee because we want to improve it. We are absolutely certain that change is needed, to protect not only candidates and political parties but the people, who genuinely treasure their votes. They have the opportunity to use their vote in a general election only once every four or five years, and the last thing that they want is to be deceived. People were deceived at the last election by candidates standing under fraudulent, rogue party political names. We welcome the fact that that will change. We are interested to hear the Minister's response to the questions that have been posed in the debate.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): This has been a very positive debate. Although there may have been slight echoes of dissent here and there, the general thrust of the Bill and its proposals have been welcomed by the whole House.
The measure is essential, particularly if, it must be conceded, we are to deal with new electoral systems, such as those for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh assembly and the European Parliament. As the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) and the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) acknowledged, the Bill does not uniquely address that aspect. It deals with other problems which, as I think hon. Members accept, need to be addressed irrespective of views on proportional representation or any other electoral system. I assure hon. Members who do not support proportional representation for election to this House or anywhere else that there will be an opportunity in due course to consider whatever proposals the Jenkins commission makes on voting systems. The Bill concerns distinct issues relating specifically to the problems that have been mentioned in the debate.
The setting up of a register for political parties is sensible, concerning as it does the means to combat deliberate attempts cynically to mislead electors. We have heard many examples of that. I was going to say that I would hope to reassure the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) on the matter, but, on mature reflection, I am not sure whether anything that anybody said in the House could ever reassure him a great deal, such is the nature of his political approach. I shall return to the hon. Gentleman's comments.
I ought to spend a little time dealing with several of the issues that have been raised. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield mentioned the importance to the Westminster Parliament of the constituency link. I do not want to labour the point, but if he reads what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said in debates earlier this week and looks at the terms of reference of the Jenkins commission, he will—I hope—agree that we accept the important role of the constituency link in the House of Commons, and hope that, by whatever means we end up resolving the issue, it will be preserved.
The right hon. Gentleman seems to be on the edge of his seat, but, as a constituency Member myself, I reaffirm everything that the Secretary of State said. Not only is that link a source of a great deal of information that makes

us better at taking decisions in the House, but it means that those whom we represent in the Westminster Parliament know clearly who represents them because there is a defined geographical area that sends us here. Those points were well made by the right hon. Gentleman, and we accept them. Does he want to intervene?

Sir Norman Fowler: The question that I wanted to ask was whether the Minister would therefore give an assurance now that if there is a referendum on proportional representation, Ministers will have absolute freedom to campaign in favour of the first-past-the-post system.

Mr. Howarth: The right hon. Gentleman spent a long time in government himself, and knows that it would be premature for me to give any such assurance now. At the appropriate time, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet will make that decision, and when the matter is decided, we shall be able to enlighten the right hon. Gentleman. In the meantime, he must exercise his customary patience.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether registration would prevent parties from colluding to exploit the additional member system—a question which was also raised by others. Any party that wants to contest the list part of the elections to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh assembly or the Greater London assembly will need to be registered. The registrar will not be empowered to refuse a registration application merely because he believes the party to be a bogus one set up purely for the purpose of manipulating the electoral system.
However, any party set up as an "alter ego" party to try to win additional member seats would obviously be exposed by the media. That would become clear from the way in which it was campaigning, and I am sure that the voters would seek to punish it. Furthermore, the registrar would not register a supposedly new party if its name were too similar to that of an existing registered party.
The Under-Secretary of State in the other place, Lord Williams of Mostyn, as the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged, gave an assurance during the passage of the Government of Wales Bill through another place that the Labour party would not attempt to use collusion to deceive the electorate, and I hope that any responsible party would take the same view. No doubt such matters will be further debated in Committee, but it was important to get that point on the record now.
The right hon. Gentleman and others asked why there was no appeal against decisions by the registrar. It will be for the registrar to decide whether in his opinion a name does not meet the tests in clause 3. As has been acknowledged, if he is in any doubt, he will be able to refer for advice to the Speaker' s Committee established under clause 10.
It is important to reiterate what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said—that, as part of the process, the registrar will examine the history of any political party, and how that may have led to the development or evolution of a name. For example, the relationship between the Liberal party and the Liberal Democrat party could be considered in that context—I would not like to predict the outcome, but it should be fairly obvious. The registrar would determine which was the successor party to the original Liberal party. I must admit that I do not envy him that task.
The process is not as sinister as the hon. Member for Ribble Valley made out. Perhaps, on reflection, he did not mean to make it sound sinister, but that is the impression that he may have created. I believe that the registrar will operate the system in a sensible way, and there is no reason to suspect any compromise of independence or any favouritism. We should wait and see how it works, but I am confident that a lot of thought went into the most appropriate methods. I am confident, because those methods work well in many other contexts.

Mr. Brady: I apologise if I am pre-empting something that the Minister was about to deal with, but I am interested in the question raised by the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) about the legitimacy of calling oneself an independent Conservative, Labour or Liberal candidate. It is important that people should be able to do that. Does the Minister agree?

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is right; he did anticipate an issue that I intend to deal with later. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield made a number of points, and I shall try to cover the remainder of those first.
The right hon. Gentleman asked how misleading candidate descriptions are to be prevented. Any candidate standing on behalf of a registered party will require a certificate authorised by or on behalf of that party's registered nominating officer before the party's name or any form of words that voters are likely to associate with the registered party can be included on the ballot paper.
The right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members also asked why the Bill did not deal with misleading names of candidates as well as of parties—names such as "The Bogus Roy Jenkins". The Bill does not deal with candidates' names, as has rightly been said, but, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, at the general election injunctions were successfully granted in the High Court against spoiler candidates using the same or a very similar name to stand against the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and Rod Richards, the former Member for Clwyd, North-West.

Mr. Evans: Is the Minister saying that for somebody to stand as an independent Labour candidate, whether at local elections or otherwise, he or she must seek permission from the leader of the Labour party to use the word "Labour" in that context?

Mr. Howarth: I shall deal later with who is and who is not an independent candidate, but that is a separate issue. I am talking about names now.
The Bill gives protection to the names of registered parties, and the possibility of including the party's emblem on the ballot paper should reduce any confusion arising from the use of misleading candidates' names.
The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, a little ungenerously, raised the possibility of emblems causing confusion and being used humorously. I think that emblems are a good thing. The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) made a strong point about how the emblems

could help people whose first language was not English. I ask the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield to accept another point: emblems could be useful in helping people with poor vision. There is evidence from the general election that disabled people in general, but especially partially sighted people, sometimes had difficulty in voting. A well-placed emblem on the ballot paper would be easier for somebody with dim sight to make out than the name of a political party, so the emblem would be helpful.
The right hon. Gentleman asked what there was to prevent inconsistency in decisions between different returning officers about what is misleading. That is a valid and important question. Different decisions will indeed be possible, because it will be up to each returning officer to decide whether a candidate's description is misleading when it is not supported by a registered party.
However, by and large, the returning officers do their job well, and we expect them to make reasonable decisions. I do not therefore expect any great variation between decisions. All of us here have stood for election, so we know about the good sense of returning officers. They are often put under pressure by people such as ourselves, and they usually make reasonable decisions in line with common sense and the requirements of legislation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) raised several points, and asked whether non-registered candidates would still be allowed to use party names on the ballot paper. He is right that the Bill will not prevent the continuation of so-called joke candidates with party descriptions, so long as, in the opinion of the returning officer, those would not lead voters to associate the candidate with a registered political party.
My hon. Friend also asked how the registrar of political parties would decide whether a proposed party name was offensive. That is up to the registrar to decide. If he is uncertain, he may seek advice from the Committee to be appointed by Madam Speaker under clause 10. Those are sensible arrangements. I do not want to be drawn into a debate with my hon. Friend as to what is and what is not offensive—first, because I detect some eagerness among hon. Members to get away tonight, and secondly because it might be slightly dangerous.
The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell)—part of whose speech greatly upset the hon. Member for New Forose, West—asked why the Bill should not contain provisions to allow parties to adopt all-women shortlists. The Government share the aim of increasing the representation of women and minority groups in Parliament and the devolved legislatures, but we do not believe that it would be possible or, indeed, appropriate to use the Bill to enable political parties to introduce measures such as all-women shortlists.
As has been made clear during discussions on the Scotland Bill, our legal advice is that, even if political parties were to be given a general exemption from the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, all-women shortlists would still fall foul of the European Union equal treatment directive. We could not have used the Bill to overcome that difficulty even if we had wanted to. We hope that political parties will do all that they can within the existing legal framework to encourage women candidates and to ensure that their selection procedures are not inadvertently discriminatory. I hope that the House


will agree that the huge increase in the number of women Members of Parliament following the general election last year has improved the way in which we conduct business.
The hon. Member for Poole—I am about to damage his reputation, possibly beyond repair, and certainly in the eyes of the hon. Member for New Forose, West—made a typically thoughtful speech; I think that it was the second or third speech that I have heard him make this week. apologise if I am damaging his prospects, but he asked some useful questions, including whether a party would be able to register variants of its name, such as Conservative and Unionist, and who would be able to use words such as "Unionist" in their party's name. The Bill provides for each party to register one principal name, with an option, as was said earlier, for a Welsh-language name. It already provides protection for variations in a party's name. For example, if the Conservative party is registered, we would not expect the registrar to allow another party to register its name as Tory, Scottish Conservative or Young Conservative, as those names are associated with the Conservative party.
There is nothing to prevent a party from advising the registrar of the alternative names or variants that it uses—although they would not be registered separately—which could be misleading if registered by another party. The test is whether, in the registrar's opinion, voters are likely to be confused. That means that more than one party could use the same word in its name—such as "Liberal" or "Unionist"—provided that it was clear that voters could distinguish between the parties; if there were any doubt, the Speaker's Committee would be able to advise. Again, the history of those political parties would be taken into account. I recognise that, because of the way in which the Conservative party has developed over the years, there is some difficulty in the use of the word "Unionist", but we would not in any way seek to exploit that.
The hon. member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders), who described his rather sorry experience of misleading party names, asked about the use of the title "independent"—the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) intervened somewhat prematurely to raise the same issue. The order-making power under clause 3(1)(f) allows any word or expression to be prohibited. That will prevent some words, such as "royal", from being used in the title of a party. It will also help to ensure that some generic words or phrases, such as "independent" or "residents association", are not registered by one party so as to prevent their being used by individual candidates. The power can be used to allow a party to use the words "residents association" in its registered name only if it is qualified to do so within a geographical area—in other words, a party would not be able to operate nationally using the name Residents Association. As has been said, it would be open to the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell)

to remain an independent or to register under any name that he chose—perhaps the Martin Bell party or the Anti-Corruption party—

Mr. John Greenway: The White Suit party.

Mr. Howarth: Or, indeed, the White Suit party. He could use one of those names, provided that it could not be confused with that of another party and that it met the tests of the Bill. People will be able to continue to stand as independents provided that their use of the name is not intended to cause confusion through identification with a legitimate registered party.

Mr. Brady: I fear that the Minister is missing the point. Our concern is not the permissibility of using the name "independent", but whether it is permitted to use the names Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat in conjunction with it. The use of the word "independent" must surely be sufficient to make it clear that there is no intention to deceive.

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The conjunction of the words "independent" and "party" is probably a tautology, so perhaps we should not be drawn down that road—we can have that debate at greater length in Committee.
As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said at the outset, the Bill is largely a technical measure, but it is none the less important. Once it has been enacted, there will be proper protection at elections for the names of political parties from spoiler candidates who use deliberately misleading descriptions. The electorate will have a much greater certainty that whoever they vote for represents the party that he or she claims to represent—I know that the House will welcome that.
We believe that it is vital that, for the purposes of list-style elections, the political parties have a simple and straightforward means of putting forward their candidates. The Bill is also right for the other reasons that I have mentioned, and it meets all the challenges that were set for it. I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — REGISTRATION OF POLITICAL PARTIES BILL [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Registration of Political Parties Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment, and
(2)the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Allen]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — House of Commons (Modernisation)

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): I beg to move,
That this House approves the Third and Fourth Reports from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons on Carry-over of Public Bills and Conduct in the Chamber (HC 543 and 600).
First, I welcome the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) to the debate. He has had to deal with business questions and a debate on modernisation on the same day, so I hope that he will soon feel truly initiated into his new role.
The purpose of the debate is straightforward—to seek the approval of the House to the changes proposed in the third and fourth reports of the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons.
The Committee's first report, which dealt with the legislative process, recommended that, in appropriate cases, carry-over could be used as a positive means of improving the quality of legislation—the report was agreed by the House on 13 November last year. Our third report brings the attention of the House to a memorandum by the Clerks of both Houses on how the carry-over procedure could operate in practice. I should make it clear that the Government do not yet have any specific Bill in mind that should be subject to the procedure. Moreover, no change to Standing Orders is required at this stage. However, we should be clear about the process and the restrictions that would be placed on its use.
The basic reasons for having some end-of-Session flexibility were laid out in our first report, but it may be worth reiterating them. It may mean that, in time, we can move towards spreading legislation more evenly throughout a parliamentary Session. We may be able to avoid Bills having to be rushed through just before the end of the Session to avoid the cut-off. As the Modernisation Committee pointed out, introducing this flexibility gives the Government some assurance that any extra time that might be necessary for extra scrutiny—such as by means of a draft Bill, or by using the mechanism of a Special Standing Committee—would not put a Bill at risk.
Essentially, the carry-over procedure would be used in co-operation through the usual channels and between the two Houses. The Committee has suggested first that the Government Bills to be carried over should not have completed their passage through the House in which they originated—that is, not sent to the second House—although, presumably, they will have been advanced as far as possible. Secondly, it is suggested that they should be carried over by specific ad hoc motions and not by any easy change to Standing Orders. Thirdly, they should be Bills whose eligibility for the carry-over has been agreed through the usual channels. Those are important safeguards which should be mentioned.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: This is a very important point. Am I to take it that it will be made clear that this will be allowed to happen only on the basis of total agreement and on non-controversial matters, because, frankly, should this become a habit, it could become an extremely dangerous precedent in the hands of some Governments?

Mrs. Taylor: I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend. I and Committee members with ministerial experience in

previous Governments pointed out that worthy Bills can be squeezed because other measures have a high level of political priority. If certain measures could be introduced towards the end of a Session, it might be possible to deal with some of the important issues for which there is cross-party support. Those could be dealt with in a more measured way than is sometimes the case when we have the cut-off.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: I fully accept my right hon. Friend's point, and she has done some good work on both reports. I am not sure whether we would need a motion on each of the matters to be carried over—a necessary safeguard, I should have thought—and whether the motions would be debatable. The report does not mention what sort of time my right hon. Friend has in mind for such a debate. Can she enlighten us?

Mrs. Taylor: I hope that there will be agreement, but we would need the safeguard of allowing the House to express its opinion and we would need the House's formal approval. I would envisage that we would debate such a motion.

Mr. Sheldon: Each one?

Mrs. Taylor: Yes, were there to be more than one in any Session. At the moment, we are in new territory, and I have in mind no specific Bill on which to use the procedure in this Session. There is plenty of time to discuss the details of how this will work.
Part of the reason for discussing the principle is to encourage the Government to be less hesitant. Previous Governments have always been hesitant about allowing Bills either to go to Special Standing Committees or to be considered in draft form by Select Committees, simply because of the time constraints that the cut-off at the end of a Session can provide. It is envisaged that specific motions would be moved on any measure proposed to be dealt with in this way.
I remind the House that the Procedure Committee in the House of Lords recently recommended similar procedures to those I am proposing. It acknowledged that a Bill carried over in one Session and sent up from the Commons at the start of the subsequent Session should be treated in the same way as other Bills. Paragraphs 13 and 14 of the appendix to the Modernisation Committee's third report make it clear that the carry-over should not give rise to any particular problems for the Lords, which is generally willing to accept this procedure.
The Committee's fourth report, "Conduct in the Chamber", covers a wide variety of areas in which Members rightly feel that the House's way of working needs to be brought up to date. Looking at the list of recommendations, it is surprising that some of those procedures have survived for so long. The recommendations are a mixture of procedural and administrative changes, some of which can be implemented by the Chair, while others will need changes to Standing Orders—hence the motion.
Some hon. Members think that the changes we are proposing are not necessarily the last word in terms of how the House conducts itself. The report deals with issues such as time limits on speeches; the ending of the


automatic precedent for Privy Councillors; and ending some of the anachronisms, such as opera hats for points of order in Divisions, spying strangers and the banning of quotations from the Lords. The report also contains some simple measures to be more helpful to Members, such as putting the names of Members' constituencies on the annunciator and, where possible, giving notice on the annunciator and the PDVN of time limits on speeches.
I will deal first with changes that can be implemented by the Speaker without any change to Standing Orders. The first is our recommendation in paragraph 28 that the Speaker should be
under no obligation to give any precedence to Privy Councillors in debate.
Considering the initial reaction, that may the most welcome of the changes we have suggested. I am aware that some, although not all, Privy Councillors have reservations.

Mr. William Cash: Are we to understand from the rather delicate way in which this has been expressed that the recommendation that the Speaker be under no obligation to give precedence to Privy Councillors implies that Privy Councillors have, in the past, perhaps had a rather undue share of the cake in terms of the length of time allocated for speaking in the House? It has been rather difficult to understand why people who have had a lengthy career, but who have not necessarily illuminated the House during that career, should get the biggest share of the time.

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has illuminated the House with the reasons for the change. That is why I said that it was one of the more welcome changes we have proposed. There are one or two Privy Councillors who have some reservations, but many others think that it is a reasonable change.
I hope that the House will accept the principle that all Members are equal, and that we all have an equal right to be considered to speak in any debate. It is a fact that some Privy Councillors will receive priority in certain debates because of specific roles that they occupy. For example, they might be the Chair of a specific Select Committee, which might mean that they receive preference in a particular debate. However, they should not get automatic preference just because they are Privy Councillors.
The second point in terms of proposals that do not require a change to Standing Orders is the old practice of banning direct quotations from speeches made in the House of Lords in a current Session of Parliament. We recommend that that should be abolished, and it is right that we should be able to quote whomever we wish without fear of being pulled up.
The third recommendation concerns how we behave in the House. Members who are here for a debate should be here at the beginning, should listen to others who speak, should stay after speaking, unless they have compelling reasons not to, and should certainly reappear for the winding-up speeches. On many recent occasions, it has been brought to the attention of the House that Members have not obeyed the usual courtesies of debate and have not listened to the speeches of others. Members who fail to observe the normal conventions of the House should not expect to get priority in being called to speak in future.
We have suggested that the Speaker should indicate to Members that that will be the case if they do not observe courtesies that should be obvious to any Member who is genuinely interested in a debate. Madam Speaker has indicated that she is "fully sympathetic" to that idea, although, understandably, she does not want to be placed under an absolute obligation to write to every Member on every minor transgression. We can leave it to the Speaker's discretion.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: In discussions around the building over the past fortnight, I have become aware that many Members do not appreciate that recommendation, but it is one of the best to come from the Committee. It is extremely discourteous to expect other people to listen to our speeches, but to fail to return to the Chamber to listen to others. Can my right hon. Friend give any hint of how such matters will be quickly made known to Members so that the recommendation is enforced?

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend raises a genuine point. We sometimes assume that every Member reads every Select Committee report—including those of the Modernisation Committee—and every line of Hansard. That may not be the case. There will be occasions on which Madam Speaker will wish to draw points to the attention of Members; on other occasions, the Whips will wish to do so. Members who are not present for winding-up speeches cannot expect Ministers automatically to respond to their points. A combination of those factors may lead Members to understand the reasons for the conventions. They are simple courtesies, and, if a Member is genuinely interested in a debate, they are the least that can be expected.
Our fourth recommendation relates to the absolute ban on direct quotations in supplementary questions. We recommend that it be lifted, although, as we have said, the Speaker should not hesitate to stop lengthy questions. The fact that a Member is quoting is no excuse for making a question unduly long. I am sure that Madam Speaker will not hesitate to act when necessary.
We recommend a new procedure for raising points of order during a Division. At present, we have the opera hat, and, although some Members may feel that they look particularly fetching in it, it makes the House of Commons look ridiculous when someone wearing the hat is trying to raise a point of order from a seated position while everyone else is milling around and going to vote.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: The point is that everyone is milling around. If we must get rid of the opera hat, there must be some means by which a Member can indicate in the melee that he or she wishes to make a point of order.

Mrs. Taylor: We dealt with that point in the report by suggesting that Members, having indicated to the Clerk or the Chair that they wish to make a point of order, should be able to do so. We suggest that a Member should do so from a position on the second Bench, as close as possible to the Chair and the Clerks' Table so that he or she can be heard by the Chair and by the Official Report without obstructing the movement of Members to the Lobby. I understand that the hon. Gentleman wants to be sure


that Members will still be able, in rare circumstances, to make points of order, but we have offered an alternative that might be used.

Mr. Bennett: I accept that it is difficult to make a point of order during a Division. When we put the hat on, most of the rose of the House is amused by our appearance. However, although having a special place to stand is perfectly all right for the person making the point of order, it often happens that once a Member has made a point claiming that something is absolutely outrageous, another Member wants to rebut it quickly. If one is standing in the far corner, it will not be easy, after hearing a point of order, to rush to the second Bench to make a point.

Mrs. Taylor: It is not for other Members to rebut points of order, but for the Speaker.
If we adopt the new procedure, what should happen to the top hats that have been in the Chamber until now? I understand that we have two hats here normally. Perhaps one could be displayed in our archive near the old annunciator downstairs. I am sure that many Members would like the other as a souvenir, but I do not think it best to do that with it. Perhaps we should find a way to raise money for charity by disposing of the hat. Perhaps Madam Speaker could give some thought to that.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: We could put it in the Dome.

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend makes an intriguing suggestion, and I will convey it to my hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio. Wherever the hat goes, we will make sure that any money raised is used for a very good purpose.
The Committee also recommended a couple of simple administrative changes. First, the constituency as well as the name of the Member who has the Floor should be displayed on the annunciators that are visible throughout the Palace of Westminster. That simple change would be of assistance, as would our second suggestion, that details of proposed time limits on speeches should be put out to Members on the annunciator and the PDVN.
Madam Speaker has made it clear that she sees
the logic of this and it may well be possible to implement it on some (or indeed most) occasions",
but she adds:
Equally, however, there will be occasions when I am not in a position to do so.
That relates to whether Members inform the Speaker early enough that they wish to speak in a debate. Sometimes, Members inform her office rather late in the day, and it would not be possible at, say, 1 pm to indicate that a decision had been taken. Madam Speaker has undertaken to use her "best endeavours" to provide such information, and the House should accept her offer. If Members give the Speaker better notice of a wish to speak, it will be more likely that they will get a warning that a time limit has been placed on debate.

Mr. Eric Forth: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving way.
Does the Modernisation Committee acknowledge that its recommendation threatens the spontaneity of debate in the House? I have always thought that one of the points of having debates in the Commons was that Members could listen to speeches and then feel moved to seek to catch the Speaker's eye. Does the Leader of the House accept that to oblige us all to write in advance, before we have heard the debate, could stultify the process and kill off the spontaneity of debate that I hope the House still treasures?

Mrs. Taylor: If the right hon. Gentleman is concerned about the spontaneity of debate, I hope that he will support the suggestions on interventions, time limits and injury time that I am about to move on to. They are critical if we are to ensure that debates are more spontaneous.
Time limits can apply at the moment. If they are to apply, and Madam Speaker can make an early decision on the matter, it is reasonable that hon. Members who wish to speak know that that is the case so that they can prepare a 10 or 15-minute speech, rather than thinking that they have the time to make a long speech and having to curtail it at the last moment. If there are to be time limits, surely there is nothing wrong in informing Members that that is to be the case.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way again. I have no problem with time limits—I hope that we all strive to be concise. My difficulty is that if we constrain too tightly the requirement always to notify the Speaker in writing if one wishes to contribute, the danger will be that hon. Members who might not have thought that they would speak, but who attend the debate and listen to other speeches, may wish to contribute but simply not be able to do so. Would the Leader of the House share my regret if that were ever to be the case?

Mrs. Taylor: It is not a question of excluding people. There is not always high demand to speak in debates, although in many debates there is. If hon. Members have been waiting for a specific debate and have written to the Speaker and prepared in advance, and if they have perhaps not spoken for some time, that should be taken into account. I am not saying that one should not be able to participate in a debate if one has not written to the Speaker; nor is the Modernisation Committee.

Mr. Cash: Occasionally, statements are made—the practice has become frequent in the past few years—on days when there is controversial business. They take up a great deal of time and thus considerably curtail debate on the main business, much to the infuriation of hon. Members who wanted to speak. Some people believe that that has been done deliberately to reduce the length of the main debate. Statements are bound to affect whether Madam Speaker wishes to impose a time limit. Will the right hon. Lady comment on that and on the eight-minute rule, to which she has not yet referred and about which the House can reasonably expect some explanation?

Mrs. Taylor: I will deal with the hon. Gentleman's final point when I come to the changes that require amendments to the Standing Orders. The usual complaint from Opposition Members about statements is that we do not have enough of them. Now we have a complaint that


statements conflict with the desire for longer debates on certain matters. The hon. Gentleman merely illustrates the dilemma that we always face when we consider whether to have a statement on a particular issue. It always has to be a balance between the importance of the statement and the importance and pressure of the debate. Sometimes, statements are moved to protect Opposition days and there is always the possibility that a private notice question may be granted, which can also cut into the time for debate.
The first recommendation of the Committee that involves amendments to the Standing Orders—I hope that Opposition Members who have intervened will welcome this change—is that extra time should be allowed for interventions in short speeches when there is a time limit. If hon. Members are inhibited from giving way during their speech to let other Members make a point, it can inhibit debate and lead to set speeches, with no flexibility. I raised that matter on the Floor of the House when we originally debated the Jopling changes in December 1994 and argued that we should consider the possibility of injury time. The experience since then has shown that there is a very strong case indeed for injury time, but we say that it should be for interventions and not for the full length of any answer; otherwise, it could lead to abuse of the time limit. I hope that the House will agree that there is a strong case for that.
Our next recommendation is that the Speaker should be given discretion to impose a variable time limit on speeches. At the moment, the limit is 10 minutes between certain hours. There may be occasions when that is not the most appropriate limit. For example, in a debate where there is much pressure, but it is not intense, if everyone speaks for 15 minutes, every hon. Member who wants to speak may be able to do so, whereas if someone hogs the debate and takes much longer they will not. That was the reason for the recommendation. We decided on the lower limit of eight minutes, for example, for an order or a prayer after 10 pm, with only one and a half hours for debate, when there is great pressure. We thought that that limit might be useful on some occasions, but we do not envisage its being used frequently—certainly not in the near future. We thought it right to have that option for very short debates.
Another recommendation is that hon. Members who are named by the Chair should lose their parliamentary salary for the period of their suspension and be excluded from the precincts. The latter point was considered by the Committee because it dealt with what we considered a loophole in the rule, which was shown up in the previous Parliament. Our proposal was recommended by the Procedure Committee then.
Standing Orders provide for exclusion from the precincts for those who are suspended for disorder in the Chamber, but not for those suspended for other reasons—for example, following the report from the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. It is right to be consistent in our approach on those matters. Such a restriction would not prevent hon. Members from carrying out their constituency duties.
The other recommendation that I must mention is the way in which we deal with the old procedure of spying strangers. The Modernisation Committee made a recommendation that would have had consequences that it had not foreseen: a motion could be passed in a well-attended House, and the business could be lost. Also, it was not a motion which could be used on all occasions.

For example, if the House were debating a matter on the Adjournment, the procedure could not be used because there would be no next business.
The Standing Order change that I am suggesting would keep present procedure but dispense with the antiquated—and to some, offensive—wording. A Member would have to move that we should sit in private session, rather than using the words, "I spy strangers." The ability to use such a procedure is an important safety valve for individual Members and provides minimum change while modernising the language. Of course, the procedure could still be used to demonstrate the lack of a quorum if that was what the Member had in mind.

Mr. Sheldon: We used to have the count—a procedure used to ensure that 40 Members were always present in the Chamber. That was of particular value in ensuring that hon. Members were present and that we did not have the depleted numbers that we have now. The change was one of Dick Crossman's less elegant ideas. At some stage in the future perhaps we might consider some variation on the count to ensure that the House is properly representative of the people who send us here.

Mrs. Taylor: My right hon. Friend makes a valid point, but, as I said, the procedure can be used to demonstrate whether there is a quorum.
There is only one significant change mentioned in our previous debate on the subject that we have not taken on board. That is whether we should refer to Members by name or by constituency. The Committee felt that we should make no change in that respect. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) said in the previous debate that he wanted constituency references to continue because Members of Parliament are here as representatives of constituents, not in their own right. You, Madam Speaker, have pointed out on occasion that if we referred to each other by name, Members might be more likely to get hot-tempered or carried away.
I think that I have dealt with all the points in the third and fourth reports. I was going to mention the electronic voting report that came out today and progress on other matters. Suffice it to say that, because of the time that I have taken as a result of accepting interventions, I will not detain the House further.
We think that we are making good progress in testing some of the changes that we suggested in our first report. The Committee's future work will include a report on scrutiny of European legislation; we hope that it will be published quickly. We will then move on to discussing the parliamentary calendar. The changes that the House is being asked to approve tonight are not dramatic, but they are significant and I believe that, over time, they will improve the workings of the House of Commons.

Sir George Young: I thank the right hon. Lady for her kind words at the beginning of her speech. I look forward to working with her for most of the time, but, inevitably, against her from time to time. I hope to make the transition from debating Eurofighters to debating top hats without too much discontinuity.
I welcome the two reports, which seem to be a sensible, pragmatic approach to reform. It is easy for me to commend the work of the Select Committee because I am


not yet a member of it. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), whose co-operative approach at the beginning of the Committee's agenda helped get it off to a good start. I also commend the Leader of the House for the way in which she chaired the Committee, exhibiting patience when confronted with a wide range of views and distilling them into a consensus.
Like other hon. Members, I got a parliamentary brief on the work of the Modernisation Committee and its reports in my post from Charter 88 a few days ago. I thought that its comments on the work of the Committee were a bit harsh. The ones that caught my eye were: "extremely cautious", "disappointing" and
minor amendments to existing practice".
However, paragraph 2 of the fourth report makes it clear that the reports are an initial response, focusing on areas where immediate action can be taken. Charter 88 should suspend its judgment for three or four years until it can consider the work of the Committee in the round.
I certainly prefer this cautious, incremental approach to the roller-coaster approach on constitutional reform with which we are confronted: devolution, the Human Rights Bill, Lords reform, elected mayors, change in the voting system, and all that. If I had to choose between the two approaches, I would back the approach of the Modernisation Committee.
Some of the practical results of the Committee's work already benefit the House: the revised, user-friendly Order Paper; the more comfortable voting arrangements in the Lobbies; the programming of Bills by agreement, with proper respect for Bills of first-class constitutional importance; and more extensive use of pre-legislative scrutiny through a variety of means, some of which the Leader of the House mentioned. There is also clearer information about proposed legislation. The Committee already has a lot of good work to its credit.
All Governments have occasionally found it necessary to make changes to the workings of the House. Our approach to reform should be guided by some principles. We should support sensible evolutionary reform, provided that it does not weaken the power of Parliament or the chain of accountability that links the elector and his or her elected representative and the ability to question and hold in check the Executive. It must not weaken, but enhance, the esteem in which the House is held and achieve practical improvement in the task of the House to scrutinise and make laws. It must help us to communicate with the nation and provide a focus for the concerns of the nation. As Bagehot said, it must allow Parliament
to be the cockpit of the whole life of English politics which is action and reaction between the Ministry and the Parliament.
I turn briefly—I accept the representations about short speeches—to the third report, I acknowledge that there is a tension between the sessional cut-off and the proposals for better scrutiny of Bills. I also accept that it is right to resolve it by easing the sessional cut-off in certain circumstances. To use another analogy, we are extending the runway way for worthier, slower-moving Bills so that they can achieve take-off and not abort. I welcome the safeguards that the Leader of the House mentioned in her opening remarks. It is sensible for the usual channels to determine eligibility, and to have an experimental period before finalising procedure.
On the fourth report, I was struck by a sentence in paragraph 7, which states:
Ultimately it will be for the authority of the Chair, and the confidence which every Member should have in any Speaker, rather than the changes of procedure and practice which we are proposing, which will determine the regard in which the House is held and the effectiveness of its proceedings.
There is much common sense in that. Anyone who has played football knows that it is not what the rules say, but what the referee decides, that is often crucial in determining a result.
I accept the recommendations on short speeches. I looked up the last Opposition Supply day in which I took part, about two weeks ago. I spoke for 18 minutes, the Secretary of State, who followed me, for twice as long; so I hope that I have a good record in that respect. I accept that it is sensible to have injury time for interventions. I have noticed a tendency for Members who think that they may not get called, or who may not want to stay for the whole debate, to intervene in early speeches. I do not think that that is as yet a gross abuse but it is something to watch. It shows that if one has to, one can condense a speech into an intervention.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?

Sir George Young: I detect that the dinner hour is almost upon us. I suspect that my hon. Friend may have other engagements.

Mr. Soames: Unfortunately, I have to go out to dinner and will miss the rose of my right hon. Friend's excellent, brief speech. If carried to a ridiculous length, interventions of the sort that he described would be vexatious and no doubt Madam Speaker would be swift to stamp on them. Nevertheless, does he agree that, given Back Benchers' opportunities to speak and the fact that many of them wish only to make one or two important points in an early speech because of other obligations, such interventions are not vexatious, provided that they are not abused?

Sir George Young: A sense of balance is crucial. I remember sitting on the Back Benches, having prepared a speech and hoping to be called towards the end, seeing the clock tick as the Minister gave way to a succession of Back Benchers who then removed themselves. Often the chap who sits patiently on the Back Benches with some considered remarks does not get called because the Minister has given way too often to people with other commitments. It is not an abuse; it is something to watch.
I agree that it is sensible to give the Speaker discretion on time. Although I may be a sufferer, I can live with the proposed changes to the rights of Privy Councillors. I note the determined fight by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) to preserve them.
I paused at the proposals for the opera hat, but I believe that the Committee is right. We should now put on the black cap for the top hat. I have never used it, but I agree that the advent of television has probably brought that harmless, indeed rather utilitarian, device to an end. It sits uneasily with a modern legislature. However, someone conventionally dressed with a top hat on does not look much more unusual than people wearing some of the other


costumes worn by Members or Officers in other parts of the building from time to time. I notice the excellent suggestion to privatise the hat once it is redundant. The proceeds will be used for charitable purposes, but, under the definitions that the Treasury uses, it will be privatised.
I applaud the work of the Modernisation Committee. I look forward to playing a part in it and I agree with the proposals before the House. The Opposition support the measures commended by the Committee and we shall continue to take a constructive approach toward its work to make the House as effective as possible, but I have to add a note of caution: however well the Committee does its work, its reforms will be swamped if we get too many ill-considered, hasty, piecemeal constitutional measures that threaten the precious chain of democratic accountability which has made our parliamentary democracy the envy of the world and which the Opposition will fight to the last to preserve. With that endorsement, I commend the measures to the House.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I shall take only a few minutes. The recommendations are to be welcomed. At first, I was naturally a little concerned about some of the possibilities that might ensue, bearing in mind that we have had some rather dramatic changes made to the way in which the House of Commons conducts its business over the past 20-odd years, especially in the 10 to 12 years before Labour assumed office. I thought that that trend would continue, but it has not.
The arrangements in respect of short speeches are sound. Privy Councillors have been mentioned for the first time with a view to telling them that, except on rare occasions when they have a special interest in the subject, they will be treated like anybody else; that is a sound suggestion and I am certain that Madam Speaker will ensure that it is carried out. The ideas relating to interventions are pretty good, because they would allow people to make short interventions, although I note that, if a long answer is given to an intervention, that time will be lost. Hon. Members who allow interventions should be aware that they will get only half the time back.
I have to confess that I could not put on the top hat. Nearly every time there was an argument during a Division in the past 18 years, I wanted to raise a point of order, as hon. Members probably realise, but I could not bring myself to wear the top hat. I used to throw it to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) or anyone else and then tell them what to say—tell them to use my point of order. After the cameras came on the scene, I was even more determined to stay as far away from the top hat as possible, so I am pleased to see the back of it now.
I believe in some traditions—even though I want to get rid of the House of Lords, I want to save the building, because it was built by workers and is a wonderful place. Some traditions serve a useful purpose, but, for the life of me, I could not see why we needed the top hat. I did not know what would be done to replace it, but I now realise that we are to go to the second Bench back, as close to the Speaker as possible, so as to stand out while putting our points of order. I suppose that that is marginally better than standing on the Table; it is certain that far more people would see any hon. Member who did that, but my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish would have a job to climb up, as would many other hon. Members.
What worried me most was the fact that "I spy strangers" might be abolished. I see that the Committee has come up with a fairly reasonable proposal to replace it. If I have read it correctly, the only difference is that we will not be calling for the Gallery to be cleared—although I have to say that, in the 28 years I have been a Member of Parliament, I have never seen the Gallery cleared. Those of us who call "I spy strangers" do so for another purpose—especially in the past 18 years. I should not reveal this, but we want to test whether the Government have their troops here at quarter to 10 on a Friday morning, which is not a bad idea when the streets have not been properly aired.
I well remember one famous occasion, which others will recall, when we were desperately trying to get the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill through. We had been trying for years and, one Friday, it was No. 4 on the agenda. No. 4 is not good news and the first item had been tied up by loads of amendments from Tory Back Benchers to ensure that we would never reach the disability Bill. At about quarter to 10 in the morning, I came in and shouted "I spy strangers" and, sure enough, the Tory Government had only 27 Members here. That was great news—the first business fell.
I caught my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) in a moment when he did not fully understand what was going on and said, "Ken, pull yours off." He had a few minutes on his debate and then pulled his off—that was two down, with only one more to go. I spotted the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), who is now second-in-command on these procedural matters, and I said, "You've got the third Bill—are you in favour of the disability Bill?" He was—in fact, he was one of the few Tories who had voted with us—so he was in a bind. He pulled his Bill off and, within a few minutes, we had got the disability Bill on the agenda. Mr. Scott had to hotfoot it here from Chelsea and speak on behalf of the Government against the Bill.
We did not quite win, but we came close. That indicates that what we did was not an abuse, but a sensible use of "I spy strangers". It enabled us to elevate a part of our business that should have ranked much higher than some of the others ahead of it, but had been pushed to the back, mainly because it was the disability Bill. I am pleased that a way has been found to ensure that the principle of "I spy strangers" will continue. I heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) speak earlier about the old quorum rules. Calling for a quorum would have been a great device for people like me, but that mechanism has gone and I do not think that it will ever return.
All in all, it is not a bad package. I have to tell any hon. Member from either side of the House who tries to claim that it is an attack on parliamentary democracy that it ranks very low when compared with all those orders that were shunted upstairs, which we used to debate until two or three o'clock every morning—an hour and a half for each, after my then hon. Friend Bob Cryer and I had insisted that they be taken separately, because we were masochists and, more important, because it would keep the Government Members up. The Opposition have only limited power and doing that is one of the ways to make an impact on the Government.
The Tory Government of yesteryear decided to get rid of all those opportunities to filibuster—I should not say filibuster—all those opportunities to harry the


Government, and they sent all those matters upstairs. I warned them at the time, saying, "Do it and you will regret it when Labour gets into power," to which they responded, not believing that it would ever happen, "When Labour gets into power?" Even after black Wednesday, they still did not believe that that would ever happen, but I continued to warn them that it would and now they are faced with it.
The package is okay—I give it a few marks out of ten. I hope that it gets through tonight and that we are able to make these minor changes and ensure that our wonderful parliamentary democracy continues—at least in this place, where we are all accountable to our constituents. Then, we can move on to that other place and make sure that it is made democratic as well.

Mr. Paul Tyler: It is always difficult to follow the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—or the hon. Member for masochism, whichever he prefers. It will be even more difficult this evening, because I propose to be slightly more radical than he was.
Before I do so, I join the Leader of the House in welcoming the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) to his new role, although later in my speech I shall dissent slightly from one of the points that he made. I am sure that he will bring to the Modernisation Committee an openness of mind and a feel for the way in which the House of Commons works that will be extremely helpful.
I also pay tribute to the Leader of the House as Chair of the Modernisation Committee. Her patience is legendary, although on occasion she must have wished that we in the Committee had set a time limit on speeches, which we had not, and others might have shared that view. It has to be said that the Committee is moving painfully slowly, because it is the intention of all members of the Committee, particularly the Chair, to try to reach agreement by consensus. What is remarkable about the number of Divisions that took place on one of the reports is that it showed how exceptional it was that one of our members was unable to join that consensus; on every other occasion, we have been completely united.
I want to discuss the motivation for this exercise, because it is easy to get so stuck on the details of reports that we forget the motivation. As it is now a full year since the Committee was set up, I want to return to the core issues and the rationale behind it. There are three core elements: the scrutiny of legislation; the accountability of the Executive, to which the hon. Member for Bolsover rightly referred, and the improvement of the way in which we represent our constituents. All the recommendations that we make to the House—the rather slim ones that we are discussing tonight, the more substantial ones that we discussed last summer and future proposals—have to be tested against those three propositions. If we are not making progress on those three broad points, we must ask ourselves whether the exercise is worth while.
In response to the work that we have done so far, Members on both sides of the House have said to me, "It is going well. It is going in the right direction, but it is disappointing that you are not making more progress." The hon. Member for Bolsover would agree with me on that.
First, on scrutiny of legislation, modest improvements will result from the carry-over provisions, but we have not yet fully developed the options put before the House—and agreed by the House—in our first report. That set out the options that are already available to us to improve the scrutiny of legislation, but the Government have been unable, or have not seen fit, to take up some of the more imaginative ways in which we can tackle that problem.
If the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire thinks that the way in which we have been dealing with the constitutional Bills—by taking every single sentence, clause, full stop and comma on the Floor of the House—is the envy of the world, he is living in cloud cuckoo land. Most Members of the House know that taking the whole Committee stage of such legislation on the Floor of the House is plain barmy. It has resulted in many of the important parts of that legislation not receiving the attention that they should have received and which was precisely one of the objectives that we stated in our first report.
It is now critical that we examine and take advantage of the recent experience on the Scotland Bill, the Government of Wales Bill and the Human Rights Bill. We must recognise that the proper way to proceed on Bills of such complexity is to consider the principles on the Floor of the House, as we do with the Finance Bill and as we did with the Sunday Trading Act 1994 and, I believe, a local government Bill. Once all hon. Members have had a full opportunity—a much greater opportunity than they have had in the proceedings on those constitutional Bills—to assess the priorities and principles of the legislation, the scrutiny of the detail is much better undertaken in Committee.
Even the modest proposals for carry-over will not extend the time allowed for legislation in future Sessions to the extent that we will be able to give Bills more time on the Floor of the House. Indeed, the past year has been exceptional in that the parliamentary year has been extended, and unless something odd occurs, that will not happen again in the near future. The House must examine—I hope that, through the usual channels, this will be arranged rapidly—our recent experience and reconsider the recommendations in the first report of the Modernisation Committee.
On the accountability of the Executive, great strides have been made in trying to examine new ways in which we can operate in the House. When I first came to the House in 1974, Select Committees did not exist. Their advent introduced a new way of operating. It was a new experience for Members to sit together and interrogate and challenge representatives of the Executive. That still does not happen in this particular part of the building, but it happens upstairs, and we are getting better and better at it. Surely it is critical that we provide more, rather than fewer, opportunities for that to happen. We must find ways of debating the results of Select Committee inquiries.
The hon. member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) is not here, but if we were to apply the Mackinlay test, as defined yesterday at Prime Minister's questions, to what happens in Select Committees, we would find that most


hon. Members would pass with flying colours. However, the same Members in the Chamber at Prime Minister's questions all too often ask
fawning, obsequious, softball, well-rehearsed and planted questions".—[Official Report, 3 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 358.]
That does not happen in Select Committees, where there is true accountability of the Executive.
I hope that the implications of transferring more business out of the Chamber, and making sure that more work is done in that environment, will be examined with reference to the assessment of the parliamentary year, the parliamentary day and the parliamentary hours. Many Members on both sides of the House are disappointed that after 12 months, the Modernisation Committee has not reached even tentative conclusions on those issues. Once we take more business away from the Floor of the House, we can tackle the problem of our hours, days and years. We can achieve that by liberalising our attitudes and responses to the opportunities to call the Executive to account.
It is true—I am sure that the Leader of the House will want to make this point later—that the Committee is beginning to have very imaginative ideas about that. As a member of the Committee, reflecting the views of many other hon. Members, I hope that we will now get a move on. There is a great deal of work to be done in this respect and I believe it to be extremely important.
On representation of our constituents, I do not find that people come to my advice surgery saying that they are worried about the top hat or the garb worn by the Speaker, the Clerks or the Serjeant at Arms. Hon. Members may recall that on Monday, in a debate on electoral reform, Conservative Members repeatedly asked whether that subject was constantly mentioned in our mailbags or advice surgeries. The answer is no, but it is equally true that people do not come to our advice surgeries saying, "Whatever you do, maintain the first-past-the-post system." If that is to be the litmus test of what people are worried about, we should consider the fact that members of the public are fed up to the teeth with the confrontational image that they have of us.
On Monday, an NOP poll demonstrated that 57 per cent. of the electorate strongly agree that:
Politicians spend too much time bickering and don't work together.
A further 27 per cent. agree, less strongly. My maths is not very good, but that adds up to—

Mr. Richard Allan: Eighty-four per cent.

Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to my more numerate hon. Friend. Eighty-four per cent. of the electorate agree with that proposition. That is a real test, rather than the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) wondering why people do not come to his surgery. Eight-four per cent. of the electorate believe that we are too confrontational. Clearly, we have to find ways to achieve more consensus in the House, and more transparency.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Frankly, that is the biggest load of rubbish that I have ever heard in my life. It is important that we stop talking too much arrant nonsense. It is difficult for many of our constituents these days to know

what is being discussed in the House of Commons. Those who complain most about the noise at Question Time, are those who listen avidly to it and who complained bitterly about the loss of Question Time on Tuesdays and Thursdays.

Mr. Tyler: The hon. Lady is making my point for me. If the electorate concentrate only on the charade or cabaret show of that one half-hour in the week, like the American viewers of that extraordinary late-night programme that shows it, that is exactly the reaction that we will get. However, the hon. Lady says, and she is right, that the House of Commons should be more elector-friendly and more transparent. I agree, and many of the recommendations in our latest report on the conduct in the Chamber should address that.
It is not only a matter of courtesy. Of course, it is more helpful if we are courteous to each other. However. the whole point of being in the House to hear people speak before or after us is that there is a better chance of a real debate. It is more likely that there will be a proper dialogue across the House. If one walks in, makes one's set prepared speech and then goes out to dinner, it is unlikely that one will hear how other hon. Members respond to that speech or how the Leader of the House or the Minister replies to the whole debate.
It is the essence of a debate that one does not pop in and out of it—one is part of a continuum. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who has an excellent reputation for taking part in debates in that sense—being here, listening and taking part—is a prime example of a real parliamentarian. To my mind, the type of parliamentarian who pops in at Prime Minister's questions, makes a funny intervention and departs is not serving his or her constituents well.
That is precisely why the report—which may appear to be rather peripheral—about the conduct of debate is extremely important. If we cannot debate issues in a way that develops a result—a continuum, a conclusion and, often, a consensus—we are not a debating chamber but a forum for a slanging match: a cockpit in which people throw alternative views at one another.
On the timing of speeches—[Interruption.] Some hon. Members are looking at me askance—

Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Gentleman has already taken three minutes longer than my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young).

Mr. Tyler: The hon. Gentleman says that I have been too long. I also have served on the Committee for a year, and I hope that it may help the House if I explain why the Committee needs a kick up the backside to speed up its conclusions.
Timing of speeches matters. I believe that it is important that we allow latitude for injury time. I make one plea, however, on behalf of all Back Benchers, to all three Front-Bench teams. It will not be enough to have a time limit on Back-Benchers' speeches if Front Benchers are not less self-indulgent. Recently—I know that you are well aware of the fact, Madam Speaker—there have been occasions, in a one-and-a-half-hour or three-hour debate, when time for Back-Bench speeches has been squeezed so mercilessly that a proper Back-Bench view has not been


expressed. Fortunately, tonight we started earlier than anticipated, so there will be plenty of time for Back-Bench views.
This sequence of reports is helpful. The latest—published today—on electronic voting, although, on the face of it, no great step forward, is useful and expresses the views of the House.
However, we make a ludicrous mistake if we allow ourselves to think that removing the top hat, or enabling Members to get through the Lobbies slightly quicker, is all that we need do to modernise this place. The electorate do not believe that, and we shall be answerable to them if we do not take this real opportunity to take the House of Commons into the 21st century.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I warmly welcome most of the recommendations in the reports, although they are slightly timid.
I very much welcome the idea that non-controversial Bills may be carried over from one Session to the next. However, I warn the Leader of the House that there was a great abuse when some private Bills went on from Session to Session. If this is to happen, there must be agreement that the Bill is non-controversial, and at the start of its passage an announcement should be made that it is intended that the Bill should take six months to pass through the House and that it will be three months in one Session and three months in the next—especially so that people outside the House know the time scale envisaged. It should be planned, not accidental.

Helen Jackson: I appreciate my hon. Friend's argument, because many hon. Members have asked members of the Modernisation Committee when we shall get round to timetabling our hours in the House more sensibly, and the answer has been, "When we have an opportunity to timetable and programme more of the legislation that we have a responsibility to pass, at its start." Does he agree that proposals such as those that he is making must be accompanied by a more structured programming and timetabling of all our work in the House?

Mr. Bennett: I am reluctant to go too far down the line of structuring it. It is important that people outside the House know exactly when we aim to finish the legislative process, but it is also important that the Opposition should have flexibility to argue about how time is allocated within that span; taking that away would be to deny the Opposition a great deal.
Better behaviour in the Chamber is important. I hope that, if the motion is carried tonight, you, Madam Speaker, will consider ways in which to bring that to the attention of a wide audience and to ensure that Members comply, so that they need not be reprimanded.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) urged that very short speeches be made from the Front Benches also. I am not entirely sympathetic to that view, especially when we are debating orders. When a Minister is dealing with an order in a short time, it can be far better for him or her to take half a dozen interventions than to say, "I have only 10 minutes, so I shall just gabble out

my notes," preventing any exchange of views across the Chamber. Although, on the whole, Ministers should try to make short speeches, we should not place too much pressure on them and give them an excuse not to answer to the House.
I realise why motion No. 5 says,
the Speaker may disregard the time taken by interventions
when calculating the time for which a Member has spoken, but I hope, Madam Speaker, that you will err towards "shall" rather than "may" more often than not.
To help Members, we resisted for a long time having the electronic clocks above us. When speeches are limited to 10 minutes, it might be easier if part of the clock counted down to give Members an idea of how long they had spoken. Often, when I believe I have been on my feet for three minutes or less, it comes as a terrible shock to see the two pips going on the clock—and the next minute the Chair cuts me off. I realise, however, that in bringing the electronic age into the House, we must move fairly slowly.
I am grateful that the process of asking strangers to withdraw has been modified. I am also very pleased to see the hat go. I am aware of the force of the argument that it should be given to charity, but I believe that the best way for the House to send it off would be for us to hold a Division on one of these motions tonight and get my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to wear the hat to finish it off. That would be a really appropriate way for it to go. If my hon. Friend does not put it on, those outside who manipulate photographs will be tempted to produce covers for publications showing my hon. Friend wearing it. I therefore ask him: why not take up the challenge tonight? I have never known my hon. Friend to be a coward in any issue, so how about it?
The hat has subjected the House to much ridicule, but the new procedure will be fairly difficult to operate. Many points of order during Divisions concern delay in the Lobbies—in which, on occasion, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover and I, and others, have been involved. Such matters need not be raised as a point of order. Action could be taken rapidly, given all the electrical devices that the Clerks can —have

Mrs. Dunwoody: Cattle prods.

Mr. Bennett: If my hon. Friend wants to get that remark on to the record, it must be an intervention—or at least the Member who has the Floor must repeat it—but no doubt her cattle prods are there, although someone in the Hansard box is now worrying who to attribute the remark to. I was not, in fact, after cattle prods; I was after a bit more vigour when it becomes obvious that hon. Members are delaying in the Lobbies.
My amendment does not meet with favour with a huge number of hon. Members, but I must say, Madam Speaker, that you are one of the fortunate ones. You have chosen what to wear when you are in the Chair. Most others who have to wear special dress in the Chamber have not had the opportunity to choose what to wear.
In my opinion, the Chair is distinguished by the person who occupies it, not by their mode of dress. Matters such as the Committee stage of the Finance Bill are sometimes dealt with on the Floor of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) has


taken the Chair when the House is in Committee; she did not need to wear anything special to be a very distinguished Chair.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I shall be extremely ungracious and disagree with my hon. Friend. Does he not realise that the really influential people in this place are the Clerks? They are the ones who run the House—whatever we like to think—under Madam Speaker's eagle eye. Our only chance of getting back at them is to force them to wear both gowns and wigs, particularly during the summer. I hope that my hon. Friend will not lightly abandon that useful practice.

Mr. Bennett: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point, but I do not think that the Clerks need to wear wigs and gowns. Perhaps there was a time when less distinguished people arrived in that position, but the recruitment of Clerks has changed in recent years and the people who occupy those chairs now were chosen on merit and do not need to wear a wig to cover any lack of skill.
As for the Serjeant at Arms, I have never seen the Serjeant's dress sword used to any advantage, but I have seen more than one Serjeant looking extremely ungallant as he avoided tripping over it. I wonder whether it is really useful. I hope that the Modernisation Committee might consider that we do not need fancy dress in order to distinguish people's roles, which can be best distinguished by where they sit and the way they behave rather than by the clothes they wear.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I, too, must declare an interest in the debate inasmuch as I am a member of the Modernisation Committee. As my signature is appended to the reports, I am committed to them.
I must make an observation about Standing Orders. They are the basis upon which Madam Speaker governs the House, so any change to them is very serious and important. I shall address only one proposed change to the Standing Orders: short speeches. I am concerned about it—there is no point in my declaring otherwise. It is probably well known in the House that it was intended to reduce the duration of speeches to five minutes, but we compromised on eight minutes. I suggest that the House consider the matter carefully.
I noticed that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who is my colleague on the Modernisation Committee, began his speech at 27 minutes past the hour and finished at 41 minutes past the hour—he spoke for 14 minutes, taking one short intervention of less than a minute's duration. I do not criticise the hon. Gentleman; I simply observe that I am not sure whether he was making the case for short speeches. Let us reflect on that point.
It is important that we are able to express the passions that we feel as elected representatives, who are in this place on an equal franchise, about the great issues of the day. We can sometimes do that by simply shaking our fists at the Government Front Bench; we sometimes make subtle and argued speeches. Each hon. Member pursues his or her argument in a particular way. We are not all gifted with the ability to make a deft little speech, but we

can carefully construct and assemble an argument. Can we discharge that function honourably if we are limited to eight minutes on great occasions?
In truth, we often afford too little time to the great speeches and occasions of the day. I was happy to note that the Second Readings of the Government of Wales and Scotland Bills lasted for two days. In the late 1940s, Second Readings lasted for two or three days when radical changes were being proposed. My point is that we compress a great deal and I wonder whether that serves the interests of Back Benchers. Do we have an adequate opportunity to try to unpick the Government's arguments and authority? It is a testing process. The hon. Member for Cornwall, North took 14 minutes—I do not think that he deliberately went out of his way to be verbose—to give a perfectly reasonable summary of the Committee's report. That is my concern about this proposal. I shall try to keep within my eight minutes.
Half of the assemblies of the world have introduced short speeches, which have become a succession of soundbites, trivialisations and armies marching against each other. The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes) shakes her head: I accept that we have different views.

Ms Beverley Hughes: I shook my head because I believe that there is another argument that the hon. Gentleman should, perhaps, accept—or at least consider. My experience of this place is not long, but I have long experience in politics and in academia. I have found that the quality of a speech is often in inverse proportion to its length. It may assist the quality of debate if hon. Members have to put their points succinctly and clearly. Short speeches may benefit the House in terms of the quality of speeches and of debate by enabling more hon. Members to express their views. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

Mr. Shepherd: I accept that every hon. Member makes a speech in the way that he or she is best able. I reflect only upon the fact that this is a representative House: some people are naturally witty and some approach subjects sideways. Our intention is to try to influence argument and debate. We have all been tutored that the shorter and more condensed the speech, the better it is, but that is not always true.

Mr. Tyler: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is a matter of balance? If hon. Members are long winded—and some are—it inevitably means that other hon. Members will not have an opportunity even to express their views succinctly, as they will be excluded completely from the debate. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is a matter of balance and that, in some circumstances, the Speaker should have the discretion to limit debate? That is all we ask.

Mr. Shepherd: Of course I accept that it is a matter of balance; I thought that 10 minutes was a reasonable expression of that balance. That is why I am concerned about this change to Standing Orders—that is all. I can see that hon. Members accept that it is appropriate to truncate speeches and that they believe that the best speeches are those that are refined and reduced to eight minutes' duration. I simply state that we are elected—regardless of


our inadequacies—to represent our constituents, to express their views and to put our arguments to the best of our ability.
I have watched the House narrow its focus more and more. In my career in Parliament, I have noticed that Privy Councillors usually rise to speak first in debates. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) spoke for 12 minutes in a very limited debate on the West Lothian question. Do we really expect him to compress his speech to eight minutes? Should a former Foreign Secretary be limited to speaking for only eight minutes on the great issues of the day? Under this rule, Privy Councillors will rush to speak first. We often seek the reflections and the wisdom of people who have experience in public life. They should not always speak first in debate, but should hear the range of arguments and perhaps respond at 8 pm—we do not all rush off to dinner.
I recall when the former Prime Minister Lord Callaghan used to sit in this Chamber and I remember his speeches well. It was said that he took a rather avuncular approach to issues. He would say, "You propose this, but we should consider that," and he would list certain problems and then wish us well. If we had listened more closely to his experience, we would have been saved some grief.
If Privy Councillors rush to speak first—and speak for an unlimited time—that will concentrate debate even more. My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), a former Prime Minister, was caught unawares by the 10-minute rule and his speech was cut off. In our glad rush to try to modernise and curtail the procedures of this place, we may lose the very essence of this representative institution. We must try to express, in however humble a fashion and as appropriately as we can—we are not all PhDs or clever computer people—the views of a broad range of the British people. In the way in which we express our views, we try best to represent them. The curtailment of speeches is an extremely serious proposal.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I occasionally think that I was extremely lucky to be elected to the House when I was. I was not particularly fashionable and I was certainly not a PhD—I was one of those appalling people who was a housewife.
I am devastated when I hear Members speak about the need to modernise, by which they mean to timetable and to reorganise the House of Commons. When I first came here, there were no Select Committees. Dick Crossman created them. It was so long ago that I can afford to say that because the Labour members of those Select Committees were so independent minded, did so much good work and expressed themselves so forcefully, there was a long debate in the Labour Cabinet about how they should be encouraged to be quiet.
I was happy to take part in that debate. Many of us said that it would be disastrous if the Select Committees were curtailed in any way and they therefore continued for a considerable time. They were closed down and later reopened because the Members of those Parliaments understood that individual members of Select Committees and Members of the House have the right to try to hold the Executive to account and to ask awkward questions, even of their own Government.
This is rather an unfashionable view, but we fail disastrously in the House if we do not understand that we as individual Members have a responsibility not only to our constituents, but to a number of basic principles, one of which concerns the desire of the people of the United Kingdom to be governed by responsible and open government that is accountable at every level.
I disagree with much in the Modernisation Committee's reports, but these are not the most difficult reports in the series. I caution my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench. I have grave reservations about carrying over Bills. I understand why it is being proposed. It has been argued that it will apply only to non-controversial Bills and will be done by agreement. All the arguments are eminently reasonable, but when I was in the European Parliament for four and a half years, it became clear to me that if a legislature does not have a cut-off point and does not know how to get rid of legislation that will never progress and is, and never will be, agreed, it gets into an extremely dangerous and unacceptable situation.
I say to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that if a limited measure is proposed, I hope that in two or three years' time people will not say that it has been convenient for the Government and the realm should be extended. It is sometimes assumed that we shall have Labour Governments in perpetuity. That may be the case, but we should never alter the rules of the House on that assumption. That would be extremely dangerous.
It is important to consider matters other than those that gain extensive coverage in the newspapers, such as wearing a top hat. I have worn the top hat. My ego must be very large; I never felt in any way diminished by it. If I want to raise a point of order during a Division it is because it is important and what I wear in those circumstances is not important to me. What is important is the effect that my raising the point of order has on the procedures of the House.
We should consider seriously the implications of proposals such as shortening speeches and their impact on our procedure. Procedure is the means by which one controls any organisation. That is the lesson taught to anyone in politics; learn the standing orders and how the procedure works, and anyone who wants to wreck it has all that machinery at their disposal. Those who do not do their homework will never be able to control what happens in any organisation.
We have heard tonight that if we had short speeches more people would be able to get in and more points would be made. More points might be made, but would more individual arguments be advanced that were based on a fairly sound evolution of ideas? There are 655 Members in this place and not all of them will get into every debate. I have sat through many debates as a Back Bencher, listening to many speeches and not being called, but I regarded that as the price that I had paid for being elected to a legislature that gives people the right to express their own opinions.
I have sat through speeches of—dare I say it—old Labour Members. We had a miner who, for many years, made one speech a year at considerable length. Now, of course, he would not be selected, but if he had been he would not be allowed to go on for so long because the points that he made were not made in a structured, disciplined and organised way that we are told is essential


to the House of Commons these days. He was saying what he believed and he was saying it in the way that he best understood.
Although I shall not vote against the recommendations tonight, I worry about the way that we are going. There are matters that the House of Commons should seriously debate. For example, we should examine the work in America of the general accounting office. It does a great deal of detailed work for the Senate and for Congress, makes it available to Members as legislation is going through, is independent of the Government and is responsible to the legislature. It enables individual Members to understand the full implications of the legislation that is being discussed.
We have nothing like that; nor are we suggesting that we should have. Many of us rely on the good efforts of a superb Library, but if we had other sources answerable not to the Government but to the House of Commons, many Back Benchers would be much better informed and would be able to make more vital points.
I was told recently that hon. Members who came in at the last election had entirely different views and wanted the whole place redone and everything changed, and that there were some hon. Members who were an overlap. I have been called many things in my time, but that was the first time I have been called an overlap. Of course, overlaps were of no importance.
This little overlap thinks that this place is important—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and that the House of Commons is getting itself into a potentially dangerous situation. We are curtailing speeches, we are seeking to timetable every Bill and we are seeking to discipline the development of individual pieces of legislation. All that carries with it real dangers, although it is not fashionable to say so. It is true that when Lord Palmerston had nothing much to say he made a speech of four and a half hours. We do not do that these days.
Modernisation is useful only if it enables our constituents to know what legislation we are considering, what implications and sanctions go with it and whether modernisation gives them the right at an early enough stage to object to any aspect of legislation that affects their lives. Those who think that that can be dealt with by timetabling show an appalling ignorance that will cost us all dear.

Mr. Neil Gerrard: In the spirit of the debate, I start by apologising for missing the first two or three minutes of the opening speech. I was caught by surprise that the business reached the Floor of the House so early.
The recommendations in the two reports are sensible. I shall deal not with those with which I agree entirely, but with those where I think that the Committee might have gone further or should reconsider in future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said that we should have nothing to do with the recommendations on carry-over. I think that those recommendations constitute one of the more important ways in which we can improve our proceedings. Let us look at the way in which legislation is currently dealt with. A Bill is given a Second Reading, a Committee stage, a Report stage and a Third Reading. The time-

consuming stage, certainly with major legislation, is the Committee stage, whether it takes place on the Floor of the House or in a Standing Committee. That is when the delays happen.
We have to fit the Committee stage into a parliamentary year which—unless there is a general election—features the Queen's Speech in November, followed by five or six weeks of business before the Christmas recess. Virtually no Standing Committees get going in that period. All the Standing Committees must then finish by the end of June or the beginning of July if we are to complete our business before the end of the Session. Effectively, what we do is compress the work of our Standing Committees into, at the most, seven months of the year, and that causes problems—problems of timetabling, for instance. When all the Committee and Report stages are happening at once, representatives of minority parties—indeed, Members in general—may not be available. The same person may be expected to deal with two or three Standing Committees at the same time.
I understand why some people want us to approach the proposals cautiously. I understand why they do not want things to go too far, and think that we should see how they develop in the context of non-controversial legislation. However, I also think that it is possible to exaggerate the amount that Oppositions are able to do. I have been told time and again that delay is the weapon that Oppositions have, and that, of course, is true: Oppositions depend on being able to delay and make themselves awkward. Nevertheless, I find it difficult to think of any legislation that has failed to be passed as a result of such delay.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I can give a classic example. The Chairman of the Liaison Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon)—who was present earlier—and Lord Barnett alone managed to stymie the reorganisation of the House of Lords, for extremely good reasons.

Mr. Gerrard: I accept that it has happened from time to time, but I think that it is the exception rather than the rule. In any event, what is proposed would not affect legislation of that kind, which is plainly controversial.
I am strongly in favour of pre-legislative scrutiny, but if we are to have special Standing Committees and the like, there must be no whipping. If I am told that it will cause a problem if I, as a member of such a Committee, start asking the Minister awkward questions, the value of pre-legislative scrutiny will disappear. If we graft pre-legislative scrutiny on to the present timetables, we may end up with some difficulties, but that will not necessarily mean that progress on Bills will take longer. Sensible scrutiny might allow us to rid ourselves of what often strikes me as clutter in Standing Committees. I do not know how many times I have heard Committee members say, "This is a probing amendment". What they mean is, "I do not know what this part of the legislation will do, and I want to find out". An hour or two—sometimes three hours—of debate then follows.

Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind the fact that the Labour Opposition's stance on the Maastricht treaty was predicated on probing amendments, which are an important instrument. At that time, Opposition Members always said that theirs were probing


amendments, although in total they would have deleted nearly all the legislation. The current Prime Minister was expert at that when he was shadow Home Secretary.

Mr. Gerrard: There is a difference between what are clearly intended to be wrecking amendments, and amendments tabled in Standing Committees by someone who genuinely does not understand the legislation and is trying to establish what it means. There must be better ways of doing that. It should be out of the way in the pre-legislation stage: at that stage, everyone ought to understand precisely what a Bill is about, how it works and why. If that could be done, it might then be possible to compress the time taken by Standing Committees, and to avoid some of what often strikes me as pointless debate.
I was interested by what the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said about conduct in the Chamber. I agreed with some of what he said about the time taken up by the Bills on Scotland and Wales and the way in which they were handled, but I was worried by his suggestion that we should move debate outside the Chamber. There are important roles for Select and Standing Committees, but I feel that we need more debate in the Chamber than we have now, rather than less.
When people outside say that they do not like the confrontational nature of debate in the Chamber, they often mean that they do not like the noise, the disturbance and what strikes them as the bad behaviour that go on here, especially at Question Time. I do not think that those people object to hon. Members expressing political views strongly, even when those views contradict each other directly. That is confrontation, but it is important, and I believe that it is what people want to hear. They do not want to hear a soggy consensus; they want to hear Members of Parliament express views in which they personally believe on matters on which they feel strongly and wish to comment, regardless of whether the Front Bench agrees.
Confrontation of that sort is very healthy. We should beware of saying that all we want is consensus. We want good, gentlemanly behaviour in debates, but that need not prevent people from disagreeing strongly with each other, and making it clear that they do. Short speeches should not necessarily prevent that.
In any event, what is proposed is not compulsory. There is no suggestion that debates must be time limited; it is left to Madam Speaker to decide when that is appropriate, and also to decide the appropriate limit, which may not always be 10 minutes. At present, certain hon. Members seem to think that the rules should not apply to them. Some of us become rather sick of sitting on the Back Benches waiting to speak, and then finding that it is 7 pm and the 10-minute rule applies, and then, perhaps, still not being called to speak, although another Member has indulged himself by speaking for 40 minutes at the beginning of the debate. I do not care who that Member is; I feel that it is an abuse deliberately and knowingly to prevent others from expressing their views. The suggestion in regard to interventions is obviously sensible: at present, when speeches are time limited, the speaker has no incentive to give way to either a friendly or a hostile intervention.
The public ought to understand what goes on in the Chamber, and I therefore consider the proposed changes to the "I spy strangers" rule worth while. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that Back Benchers need such a mechanism to try to prevent business being passed, but I understand that what is proposed would not render such a mechanism unavailable.
I hope that the Leader of the House and members of the Select Committee will continue to look at the procedures and perhaps some issues that have not yet been dealt with. We have had a report, which we are not debating tonight and perhaps will debate in due course, on voting procedures. One thing that seemed to be missing from the report was the question of voting arrangements for Members who are seriously ill.
That may not seem to matter much in this Parliament, where the Government have a large majority, but we all know that there have been times when ambulances have been in New Palace yard. That may happen again if there is a Government with a small majority, dependent on a few votes. The procedure of having very sick people brought into New Palace yard does not do the House any good. The time to look at that issue is now, when it does not matter in terms of affecting the Government—not when it could make the difference between a Government staying in office and losing office.
It is also tremendously important that the Modernisation Committee looks at the way in which private Members' Bills operate. At the moment, Bills with huge support can get nowhere and, at the same time, private Members' business that would be generally agreed disappears because time cannot be found for it. Therefore, I welcome what has been done so far in the Modernisation Committee. I hope that it will press on and start to look at some of the bigger issues that need to be addressed.

Mr. Richard Allan: I wish to speak briefly as Chairman of the Select Committee on Information in response to the recommendations in the fourth report, which will be passed on to us, but, first, I express support for some of the comments by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) in respect of pre-legislative Committees. I must also apologise for being late, having come from a Standing Committee myself. The group for which I feel sorry is Government Back Benchers, who may have a deep interest in a matter, but who, because of the time constraints on Standing Committees, have no ability to speak on that issue.
I particularly praise Government Back Benchers on the Committee that has just finished considering the Data Protection Bill, who managed to make some important contributions—I see the Government Whip who was on that Committee, the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope), smiling over there—and still completed the business according to the timetable. Pre-legislative Committees in particular would offer Government Back Benchers a chance, which they do not have, really to get stuck in.
The recommendations on the annunciators came before the Information Committee at its last meeting, at which point, in an effort not to be seen as one that always proposes ultra-high-tech, very expensive solutions, it came up with a low-tech, cheaper solution. That was to


put around the Benches the volumes that Hansard produces linking Members to their constituencies, so that Members could simply link a Member to his or her constituency, having read their name from the annunciators.
On further reading of the report, I understand that the recommendation is much stronger. It is essential that we put the constituency names up on the annunciators. Wishing to play our full part, we intend to move ahead with that. I can report that, today, I have been in discussion with a Committee Clerk about two particular areas. One is altering the current system—which is perhaps best described as a mid-tech, rather than a high or low-tech, solution—and seeing what changes we can make cheaply to that system.
Our suggestion, which will go back to our Committee, is that we have a trial session in the Chamber when the House is not sitting, whereby the annunciator operators try various solutions that are currently possible, and Members come in and try them out for such things as legibility, which is a crucial issue, given that the annunciators are so high up. I do not think that English Heritage would like us to move the annunciators into the Chamber itself, so we shall consider having an experiment within the current system to see how Members feel about it.
Looking further into the future, we are interested in having discussions as to how the annunciator system can be improved in general to make it a more high-tech solution and to get beyond the current limitations. Those limitations drove us to suggest the book alternative, in sheer frustration at the costs that were being presented to us for changing the current system to that required. I give the House notice of our full participation in the modernisation project, which is one that we, too, hold dear.

Ms Beverley Hughes: I should like to comment on one or two of the contributions and points that have been made.
We have heard much in the press—indeed, it has been rehearsed tonight, in part, by my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich and Crewe—that the thrust for some of the modernisation reforms has arisen from the arrival in the House of many new Members. The perception is that they have a different agenda as to how the House procedures should work.
It is worth remembering that, before the Labour party came into government, Labour Members who were here identified—well before the arrival of new Labour Members—that it was important to include in our reforms the question of how far the House needed reforming. That commitment to the electorate in our manifesto arose from the experience of those Members who were here in opposition. Although new Members may endorse all or part of that agenda, it has arisen not from any particular agenda that we brought, but from the experience of Labour Members who have been in the House a long time in opposition.

Mr. Tyler: Will the hon. Lady also acknowledge that it was not one single party? Part of this proposal came out of the Maclennan discussions between our two parties, so it is a broadly based proposition.

Ms Hughes: I am happy to acknowledge that.
It is worth rehearsing as well the reasons why Members at that time thought that reform was important. One of the important reasons was the understanding that the public perception of politics, of politicians and of what was going on in the House had fallen into disrepute. They thought that something needed to be done to reinforce public confidence and esteem in the parliamentary process, and that we needed to consider how far procedures as they were then and, to some extent, still are now, needed to come into the modern world and to address the agenda for the next century, rather than previous centuries. I am certainly not one of those who wants to jettison tradition for its own sake—I do not feel that at all—but I support the process of examining how far we need to make measured and necessary changes to bring the parliamentary process into the modern age.
Again, the press has made much of the fact that that agenda might include such things as reform of working hours. That is important. I do not want to dissociate myself from those issues. As someone who has been a working parent for 20 years, juggling paid work, politics and parenting, I find that nothing irritates me more than being leashed to the voting Lobby until 11, 12 or later at night, when I could be doing more useful things.
However, as important as that is, I fully endorse the view that that is not the primary objective of the modernisation process. Its primary objectives must be to enhance the quality of legislation and the quality and effectiveness of procedures, and to maximise Members' expertise and the effective use of their time. Indeed, some Members have raised other issues that are also important, such as the ability to scrutinise legislation more effectively and to hold the Executive to account.
As a Back-Bench Labour Member, I fully support that. That is part of our role, but, although we are considering measures tonight that do not get to the heart of those important issues, what we are considering is a necessary prerequisite to get to that stage. To enhance our ability to scrutinise legislation and to hold the Executive to account, we need a cultural change in parts of this place—in this Chamber and in Standing Committees. I believe that Standing Committees have potential in that regard. It is far from being realised at present, certainly for some Government Back Benchers. However, although we are not there yet, what we are talking about tonight is, as I have said, an essential prerequisite for dealing with those further questions.
I have enormous respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich and Crewe, both for her expertise—

Mrs. Dunwoody: Perhaps we could call it Crewe and Nantwich?

Ms Hughes: I beg my hon. Friend's pardon—it would indeed be enormously helpful if constituencies were shown on the annunciator. I thought that her constituency was Crewe and Nantwich, but was repeating what an experienced Member said earlier, obviously incorrectly.
I have enormous respect for the expertise of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and for her speech, and listened very seriously to the points that she made. I do not share her view on two points. First, I think that the quality of many speeches and debates will be improved if there is a focus, which is sometimes—when appropriate—provided by imposing a time limit.
Secondly, some hon. Members seem to have assumed that time limits will automatically result in whittled-down speeches. However, the report makes it clear that discretion will rest entirely with Madam Speaker, and that she will decide when time limits are necessary and what those time limits should be. I think that we can all have confidence that—in exercising her role in protecting hon. Members' right to participate in debates—she will allay those concerns. I therefore think that the amendment on short speeches would assist in improving the quality of our speeches and debates.
I should like to raise only one other issue—as I am keeping my speech short, in line with the general content of my speech. I believe that discipline and structure—words about which other hon. Members have expressed concern in this debate—can provide benefits if part of a framework, which is what a debate timetable can be. Over time, the benefits of a disciplined and structured approach can also be realised in the parliamentary process.
I hope that the Modernisation Committee will consider very soon how the parliamentary process, and hon. Members' involvement in it, can be enhanced in considering and extending the timetabling of parliamentary business—not to curtail or overly structure business, but to allow the creation of a framework for the parliamentary year that will enable both hon. Members and parties to make strategic decisions on the matters on which they want to concentrate their attention and activities, perhaps particularly when in opposition.

Mr. Robert Syms: It is important that change should be incremental. As I am both a Conservative and a conservative, I think that it is a pity that we are making changes so early in a Parliament. Usually, there is a reason for things being the way they are. As our Parliament has been going for centuries, traditions have developed that are built around the rights of individual Members. One should therefore be very careful about changing too quickly what has gone before, as there may be a very good reason for it—although that reason may not be obvious to a new hon. Member, such as myself.
I am very pleased with the new format for the Order Paper. I must say that, when first elected, I was one of those who could not understand the Order Paper format. The key point is that change should be incremental.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) mentioned the confrontational atmosphere in the Chamber. I think that the House is sometimes at its best in such an atmosphere. In how many Chambers in the world is there real heat in debate? It is not so much what people say, but the expression on their face, what they are doing with their hands, or whether they are jumping from foot to foot.
I think that our system is very good. When mistakes are made, and when people are called to account our system, it is second to none in the world.
Our intervention system is also very good, and allows rather more spontaneous debates. On many occasions—particularly when Ministers are generous in giving way—it allows hon. Members to elicit more information and a fuller explanation of a clause or Bill, which is beneficial to all hon. Members, and sometimes saves not only speeches but time.
I agree with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) on speeches. Although limiting speeches seems to be a trend around the world, one of the few powers that we have as hon. Members is the ability to speak for our constituents and constituency. Although limits may not be so bad if there are 400 hon. Members of one party, many of whom can speak for eight or 10 minutes to make a point, we must have regard also to the hon. Members who belong to extremely small parties. At some point, they may want to have their say, and may need more than eight or 10 minutes to do so. The House may be 659 in number, but we must have regard to the ones and the twos, who have a perfect right to have their say and to make their representations. We should not think purely within the context of the major parties, because this is a Chamber for all.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) made a very important point on the annunciator, which I find very difficult to see up in the rafters. Unless one clocks the clock in the Chamber or is kicked by someone on the shins, one does not know when to stop speaking. Earlier this week, my speech was cut off when I was in full flight. One feels an idiot when such things happen, and it is difficult for the occupant of the Chair. It is also undignified.
We should save a lot of time if we could find a method of allowing hon. Members to see how long they have spoken, and of displaying both the name and the constituency of the hon. Member speaking. On many occasions, I have had to lunge across the Chamber to pick up "Dod" or "The Times Guide to the House of Commons" to try to find information on an hon. Member, which takes up a lot of time. Such a system would make debate swifter.
Our voting system—going through the Lobbies—is a terribly important practice. Today, hon. Members have better office accommodation than we have ever had. However, we are consequently spread out over a larger parliamentary estate. The only time in the day when one may see colleagues, and perhaps have the opportunity to see and speak for a few minutes to the leader or senior members of one's party, is in the Lobby.

Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Will the hon. Gentleman concede that the various options all proposed maintaining the Lobby system, and that the Committee recognised the value of the Lobby system and was not proposing any change to it?

Mr. Syms: I am not quite so sure about that. I think that some of the proposals could well have led to abolition of the Lobby system. I think that physically walking through the Lobby also imposes a very important discipline on hon. Members.
I hope that any change is incremental. We must all remember that today's majority may be tomorrow's minority, and have regard to the rights of individual Back Benchers. I was very impressed by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills—who, if there were to be a shop steward to protect the rights of hon. Members, would have a very good claim to the post.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: I welcome the opportunity of being able to say a few words in this debate. It would be wrong for it to be dominated only by members of the Modernisation Committee, but, as our Committee Chairman, the Leader of the House, is a member of the Cabinet, it is important to have one speech on the reports from a Committee member who is also a Government Back Bencher. The House should realise that the Committee is not being cautious in its work. We have had to deal with many issues simply to lay a foundation for the future.
As one or two hon. Members have said in the debate, the Committee Chairman has done an excellent job in trying to build consensus in laying that foundation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes) said, the most important task for the Committee is not to make change for the sake of change, but to improve how the House works—not only for the benefit of hon. Members, but to ensure that we legislate better, and scrutinise legislation better. That objective has been foremost in the mind of the Committee Chairman, who has also kept it foremost in the thoughts of Committee members.
On the Committee's third report, on carry-over legislation, I take a different view from that of some other hon. Members. I believe that, at a general election, we elect a Government to govern for five years. The Government should have not only a five-year programme but the ability to plan their legislation over that period. I accept that we should proceed cautiously to start with, but, in the long run, we should not be afraid to move forward. It is nonsense that, after the Queen's Speech in November, we have loads of Second Readings together, then loads of Bills coming back on Report together, with the House working all kinds of hours. Then we have slack periods and a crossover of legislation coming from and going to the House of Lords. It would be more sensible to have some Bills starting in November and others in December, January or other months.
I understand the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). Perhaps no legislation should be before the House for more than one year. I am not saying that the process should drag on indefinitely. We should merely plan the year better. That would result in better legislation and better scrutiny. Once we have tested the water cautiously, I hope that we shall be a little bolder in the coming years.
One or two Conservative Members who intervened earlier failed to recognise that the first part of the fourth report after the introduction refers to the role of the Speaker. The Committee recognised the importance of your role, Madam Speaker, and that of your three Deputies in interpreting the report and the way in which our Standing Orders operate. We have confidence in you on that. That is why it is the first major item in the report. You are occupying the Chair for this important debate because of the importance that you place on the report.
I understand the argument that it is wrong to limit the length of speeches, but the Committee is not suggesting that the limit should necessarily be 10 minutes or eight minutes. It gives the power to consider the circumstances, to avoid people who have sat through a debate not having the opportunity to speak. It may be sensible sometimes to have 15-minute speeches. It is important to allow as

many Members as possible to contribute to a debate. They should not have to sit and listen to others and then fall off the end of the debate because others have chosen to go on for half an hour or 40 minutes. That is an abuse of our procedures.
I would have gone even further and supported a six-minute limit for short debates. We had a one-and-a-half-hour debate on the beef on the bone order late at night recently. Even if we assume that one hour was available for Back Benchers—although there was less time than that—it would have been fairer for 10 people to have had six minutes rather than six people having 10 minutes. We should let as many people as possible express their views.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) rightly referred to—[HON. MEMBERS: "Right hon?"] My hon. Friend. He should be right hon. He has been here long enough. Perhaps he might get it—it could go with the top hat.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend has made me a Privy Councillor just when Privy Councillors are not going to have long speeches.

Mr. Pike: Fate might do that to my hon. Friend at some stage. He made the valid point that sometimes Members of Parliament can use the procedures of the House to achieve things for their constituents and gave an example. I remember another time when several hon. Members, using the top hat, spying strangers and adopting other devices, held up the private Stansted airport rail link for two years until British Rail agreed to complete the Manchester airport rail link. That was right. I remember asking one former Minister—it might have been the shadow Leader of the House in another role—how many people travelled to Manchester airport by rail. He said none. That was true, because there was no rail link.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on the way in which she has dealt with the issue of spying strangers. The Committee could not agree a way forward, but I congratulate her on coming up with a proposal that meets the requirement of the House, allowing us to do what we currently do, but in an up-to-date and sensible way.
I welcome what the report says about wearing the top hat. It is right that points of order during a Division should be dealt with differently. I have worn the top hat many times and I thought that there was no problem with it until one of my constituents took a photograph of me wearing it from his television. If the hat had had "10s 6d" on the side, it would have taken me back to the only starring role that I had in a school play, many years ago, when I played the Mad Hatter. It looks silly, particularly to those outside the House who do not understand why we wear it. The proposals are sensible.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the report. I shall support the motions to change our Standing Orders.

Mr. Andrew Stunell: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to contribute to the debate, as a member of the Modernisation Committee. I agree with the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) on one issue—if we are modernising something, we have to have a clear perception of what it


is for, so that the modernisation does not damage it. What is this place for? The primary role of the House is to hold the Government to account, to ensure that sensible laws are passed and to give strong representation to our constituents.
There are many myths about the House, which those of us who have come here only recently can see have some holes in them. Once a Member has been here for a while, the mythology begins to take over from the reality. There is a myth that we are a self-governing institution, but we are constrained in many ways by what the Government allow us to do. Some of our considerations of the report were limited by what we were advised that the Government might permit us to do. Some of the co-operation that has been discussed is dependent on what the usual channels agree to. We must not be taken in by the myth that we are a self-governing institution with complete free will, made up entirely of sensible and reasonable people.

Mr. Shepherd: I must intervene, because the hon. Gentleman is expressing a peculiar view of life that has become current. The Government are the Government because they have a majority of elected representatives in the House. When the Government say something, they are speaking for a majority of elected representatives. This House determines matters, based on the number of Back Benchers behind the Government Front Bench. That is the essence of the House. There is nothing romantic about it. It is practical, it is true, it is direct and it is the force of government in this country.

Mr. Stunell: I was not saying that what goes on was a romance—I was saying that it was a myth. One of the jobs of the Modernisation Committee is to make the myth a reality. That is what the reforms that we have been trying to make over the past 12 months, which I hope that we shall pursue much more rigorously in future, are designed to achieve. One must ask whether, in the recent past, the House has been effective in holding Governments to account. Anecdote after anecdote—those of us outside the House at the time could only read them in newspapers—show that the Government were able to do as they pleased and were not held rigorously to account. I hear Opposition Members complaining during Question Time that they are not able effectively to hold the Government to account. We must accept that we do not have a perfect institution; we have an institution which needs to be modernised.

Mr. Syms: It is possible in the Chamber to put the majority party on the rack, but the time of judgment is not in the Chamber; it is when people vote at an election. The previous Government had many difficult moments, and lost half their Members of Parliament. That is the Chamber holding the Government to account and the people making their final decision.

Mr. Stunell: The hon. Gentleman's point is, in one sense, fair. Ultimately, the Government are held to account, but surely accountability is not just sudden death at the end of five years when the electorate pounce—or, indeed, at the end of 18 years. Accountability is about ensuring that the Government's day-to-day and

week-to-week decisions are scrutinised—one hopes before they are fully implemented and the damage is done. Accountability in the form described by the hon. Gentleman would certainly require an election every five years, but would not require us to be in the House during the intervening period, as the Government could simply carry on and take their turn at the ballot box.
I come to the issue of ensuring that we pass sensible laws. To some extent, I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) about consensus. Consensus is certainly important in some respects, but let us remember the two biggest failures of recent legislation. One might well be the poll tax, when strongly polarised debate produced bad legislation. The other might well be the Child Support Agency, when strong consensus produced bad legislation. The process of debate does not guarantee good legislation; it does not matter whether we are all friendly or all in opposition.

Mrs. Dunwoody: The Child Support Agency is a case in point. People in this place agreed with the principle of it, and, because it was not properly debated—indeed, had the proceedings been timetabled, the Bill would have gone through even faster—they had no idea of what the legislation contained until the regulations were printed. By then, it was far too late.

Mr. Stunell: I thank the hon. Lady, who is a formidable near neighbour of mine, for her intervention, but, on this occasion, I think that she is mistaken. A timetable tries to ensure that, in the amount of time devoted to a Bill, opportunities are provided to debate its key principles. If we undertook pre-legislative inquiries—a proposal in the Committee's previous report, which the House approved—experts could point out what was feasible. We do not always pass sensible laws; even Governments recognise that. The Committee was informed that about 3,000 amendments a year are tabled to Government legislation by the Government because legislation is ill prepared and ill thought out and snags arise. We need a system in which we do not have to take down every building put in front of us and rebuild it.
The Government are not held to account. About 26 Select Committee reports have held the Government to account, but they have never been debated properly by the House. The fact that everyone knows that they will not be debated means that they are not taken all that seriously, either by those who draw them up or by Ministers who may be the victims of them.
We are not in a position to provide the strongest possible representation of our constituents. I shall give just one example why. Hon. Members acting on behalf of their constituents are constantly applying to you, Madam Speaker, for Adjournment debates. Your office told us that about one in eight requests are accepted, which means that, on many occasions, the Government are not held to account for their activities concerning a constituent or an issue. We need to go far beyond the contents of the Committee's reports, to ensure that we make time for the improvement of accountability and so that laws are properly dealt with. I think that there are 17 Law Commission reports waiting on a table somewhere for the House to find time to deal with them. On the whole, the stuff is not controversial, but it would improve the lives of our constituents.
The reports contain very modest stuff—points about short speeches, for goodness' sake. Speeches should be curtailed only when you, Madam Speaker, have more people on your list than you can reasonably accommodate. Apart from that, we should be hearing hon. Members from both sides of the House clearly expressing perhaps the views of their party and perhaps their personal convictions, but, above all, the views of the constituents whom they were sent here to represent. How frustrating it is for constituents to be left dumb when their views need to be expressed so clearly.
We need to make space and adopt procedures to allow pre-legislative scrutiny. The Committee heard examples that threw doubt on the carry-over procedure. I am told that, on several occasions, the previous Government nearly got round to introducing a Bill on adoption, but could never quite do so because they could not find enough time in one Session to get the job done properly. Such legislation might be controversial, but it transcends party barriers, should be discussed thoroughly and is urgently needed in family law. We need to ensure that we carry out some sort of audit on Acts of Parliament after they have been implemented.
We must remember what Parliament is for. It is for holding the Government to account, passing sensible laws and representing the people who sent us here. Those should be the foundations for modernisation. I do not think that, when considering those three key objectives of the House, any hon. Member could possibly say that we have gone nearly far enough or fast enough in improving the situation.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I begin with a reassurance for the House: although there is more than an hour of the debate left, I do not propose to take anything like as long as that—[Interruption.] Do not tempt me.
We have had a good debate, and I should first reiterate what has been said in varying ways by many Members, about what the function of this place is, and therefore what the function of the Modernisation Committee is.
We are all proud to be elected Members of Parliament, and, when we come here, we have a number of important functions to perform. It is important that we should take part in the debates on the great issues of the day and take a critical interest in the legislation that Governments place before us. None the less, above all—here I echo to some degree the sentiments of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell)—it is important that the Executive should be held properly to account in this place.
I speak with a background rather different from that of most right hon. and hon. Members in the Chamber this evening. Like the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), I have been here for 28 years, but only in the past year have I occasionally stood at a Dispatch Box to address the House. Over 18 years, I found myself at odds with my own Government from time to time.
The poll tax has been mentioned, but neither my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), whom I am delighted to be supporting in the debate, nor I could be held responsible for that. We constantly criticised and frequently voted against the measure. I also found myself frequently isolated on the subject of Bosnia during the early years of the Balkan

conflict. I was also one of the few Tories who opposed the abolition of the Greater London council; I thought it wrong to deprive London of a directly elected authority.
I give those three personal examples with hon. Members who have recently been elected to support the Government especially in mind. Without wishing to sow the seeds of dissension and rebellion, I must tell them that they should, to some degree, take as their text the admirable and robust words of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), whose spectre has haunted the debate, although he has not been present.
Those who are elected in support of a Government have a prime duty to try to ensure that the Government whom they are pleased to support produce legislation that is well thought out, constructive and sensible, and that the Executive does not become overweening, over-powerful and arrogant. All of us in the Chamber have a duty in that regard, but it lies especially heavily on the shoulders of those who sit on the Government side.
My test of the effectiveness of the Modernisation Committee is the extent to which it is making this place a more effective Chamber. I welcome the reports before us, as did my right hon. Friend in his admirable and succinct opening speech, and I pay my tribute to the Leader of the House.
Being Leader of the House is a somewhat schizophrenic job, and we must all be sympathetic towards the right hon. Lady. Obviously, she is in charge of the Government's business and she has a partisan duty to ensure that the Government get that business. But she also has a wider responsibility—in many respects second only to yours, Madam Speaker—to the House in general.
I believe that in the way in which the right hon. Lady has chaired the Committee, she has discharged that second duty with scrupulous efficiency. I served on it for the first few months of its existence and then moved to the Parliamentary Privilege Cornrnittee—a joint Committee between this House and the other place on which, again, I serve with the right hon. Lady. I do not want to embarrass her, or to divulge what that Committee is discussing, so I shall simply say that she is considering the issues there with the same impartiality that she sought to bring to her chairmanship of the Modernisation Committee when I served on that.
However, having said all that, let me now look at what is being proposed and at some of the important points that have been made during the debate. It is crucial that we should all take to heart the comments by the hon. Members for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I often disagree with both of them, but the one thing that no one in the Chamber could begin to deny is that they are both first and foremost consummate parliamentarians, who believe in this place and seek to achieve what they believe in through this place. Their attendance here is also exemplary.
If only others would take a leaf out of their book in that latter regard, the Chamber might be what it truly should be—the cockpit of the nation. It is important that the Modernisation Committee should have as its prime objective bringing the Chamber back to true life. I supported the Jopling reforms, but some of them have had a bad effect in that respect. Thursday nights are a prime example. There were Thursday nights, not so long ago, when the Chamber would have been full at 9 o'clock. Now it is almost empty, although it is fuller tonight than it has been for several Thursdays.
The Chamber needs to be well attended. It should be the very centre of our parliamentary life and existence. Of course, the Committees, both Standing and Select, are important, but the Chamber is far more important.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) spoke about confrontation, an issue which my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) picked up. I do not think that people outside are necessarily disgusted by noise. I remember Norman Tebbit, or Lord Tebbit as he is now, saying that, if people looked at the Supreme Soviet—this was in the days before the end of the cold war—they would see an assembly that was sycophantic but that had no democracy. He contrasted it with the House of Commons at its most lively and rumbustious.
The House is often at its best either when it is debating issues on their merits, without regard to party affiliation—as we are tonight and as we did on Tuesday when we talked about the voting system—or when a great issue of national importance has brought us here with conflicting passions. No one who was here on that Saturday morning the day after the Falklands had been invaded will ever forget that debate, which exercised great influence not only on the nation but throughout the world—the way in which it influenced history has now been fully accepted and documented.
I should like the Chamber to be better attended, which is why I particularly welcome the Modernisation Committee's recommendation—a number of hon. Members have referred to it—that hon. Members should be encouraged and even disciplined to attend more regularly and to stay once they are here. It is discourteous in the extreme for hon. Members to turn up, deliver themselves of a few random thoughts and then to waltz away without returning for the winding-up speeches. If hon. Members take part in a debate, they should remain throughout the whole of the proceedings, save for taking a little modest refreshment, perhaps; they should listen to what others have to say about their contributions and perhaps to intervene—that is why I welcome the recommendation on injury time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who has been described as the man best qualified to be Parliament's shop steward, talked about the dangers of a too rigid application of timing. Those of us who were privileged enough to have listened to Michael Foot or Enoch Powell speaking in the Chamber would not have wanted many of their speeches time limited. Similarly, my hon. Friend the Member for Poole rightly argued that to limit the time for minority parties, some of which have only one, two, three or four Members of Parliament, would be relatively unfair. Although it is right that the occupant of the Chair should have discretion and exercise it properly, we should not go too far down the road of limiting time.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) was somewhat disparaging about those of us who believe that constitutional measures should be taken on the Floor of the House. I believe that those matters of supreme importance to our nation should be debated in the Chamber—the Modernisation Committee's recommendations on programming have been extremely helpful in that regard. We have not got the matter absolutely right, but we are moving in that direction, and the Leader of the House is to

be congratulated on her personal efforts to ensure that programming works more effectively than it did when it was first operated.

Mr. Tyler: In the interest of clarity, may I clear up one point? I do not in any way disagree with what the hon. Gentleman says about programming consideration in Committee, which I believe has been very effective—I, too, pay tribute to the Leader of the House. Moreover, I am not suggesting—I do not think that anyone has suggested—that the whole Committee stage of such a measure should be dealt with by Standing Committee. I believe, however, that the Modernisation Committee's compromise suggestion for consideration of other Bills—that the main issue should be debated on the Floor of the House exactly as the hon. Gentleman suggests, but that the detail of the schedules and subsidiary clauses would be much better scrutinised by Standing Committee—is sensible.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I am aware that that is the hon. Gentleman's point of view, but, with great respect, I do not agree with him. Constitutional matters should take up a large share of the time available on the Floor of the House, so that all hon. Members have the opportunity to debate them.
We have heard a number of interesting speeches. It was fascinating that the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes) shared some of the aims and objectives of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich, although she came to different conclusions.
The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston talked about public perception. The thing that most damages this place in the eyes of the public is the acres of empty green leather they see when they turn on their television sets. If the Chamber could be fuller, more vigorous and more lively in its debates—and if those debates could be better attended throughout—the public perception would change dramatically, as people saw us about our task.
A number of references were made to the carry-over provision. There is a case for carry-over, but I associate myself with those hon. Members—particularly the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett)—who said that it should take place only on the basis of agreement and not by accident. It should be properly agreed, properly programmed and properly pre-announced. That way, complicated Bills that deserve detailed scrutiny could be accommodated over two Sessions, rather than one. To try to railroad through controversial Bills—or suddenly to say, "Good gracious me. We do not have enough time. We will run the Bill over to the next Session"—would be an abuse of parliamentary procedure which we should not begin to contemplate. I am glad that the Committee did not do so.
We have had a fascinating debate, and the Modernisation Committee is doing a great deal of good. However, I hope that it will heed the old Latin motto, festina lente, and make haste slowly. It is far better that the reforms that the Committee puts in place should be on the basis of proper detailed consideration. The Committee should truly help to make the Chamber a more lively place and the House a more effective instrument of legislation. Above all, the Committee should try to make the House a place where the Government—wherever they come from in the political spectrum—are held constantly to account and made properly and fully answerable for their every action.
Let me finish with this point. When I sat on the Government Benches, I once said that we must not take to ourselves powers that we would not wish others to exercise. It was a lesson which was not always heeded. I hope that Labour Members will realise that the vast majority that they enjoy at the moment at the will of the electorate—and because of some of the mistakes that we made—is not theirs as of permanent right. In working out how we should run this place in the future, that should be uppermost in their minds.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I wish to reply briefly to some of the points raised in what has been a good-humoured, informative and—for the House of Commons—enjoyable debate. I wish we could have more such enjoyable debates. I want to deal with each speech briefly, and I hope that I will be able to cover all the points.
First, I thank the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) for his positive comments on the report. He talked about his thoughts on dress for officials of the House of Commons and was somewhat radical in his proposals. On that basis, I will certainly welcome him to the Modernisation Committee in due course. I also welcome his comments about carry-over being a process of extending the runway for Bills. That is how we should see it—as a positive move, but one which applies only in certain circumstances and not universally.
The right hon. Member also referred to the position of the referee in all this, and the importance of Madam Speaker's approach. We place a great deal of trust in Madam Speaker and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) said, that is why the Committee made particular mention of the role of the Chair and our confidence in it. I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman is a supporter of Queens Park Rangers so, presumably, he has specific views on referees. If that is the case, my views on referees and Bolton Wanderers may come into our future debates.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) claims to speak for the masochist tendency, although some of my colleagues believe that he speaks for the sadist tendency. He made important points, and I was pleased to have his support. He does not always support proposed changes in the running of the House, but, if we have support ranging from his to that of the other hon. Members who have spoken, we are perhaps getting it right.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) made a positive contribution to the Modernisation Committee, as all its members did. He said that some changes had come more slowly than he would have wished, and mentioned his desire to split constitutional Bills so that the principles can be dealt with on the Floor of the House and the detail upstairs, as happens with the Finance Bill. I agree that there is a case for that, but each Bill—constitutional or not—must be examined on its merits. I was glad that he acknowledged the progress that we have been able to make by programme motions on constitutional Bills. There was a little element of trade-off there, and we made progress on one front, if not on all at once.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the need to ensure that Select Committees work as well as possible, and that they are respected. The Government take Select

Committees extremely seriously. According to the latest figures that I have seen, appearances by Ministers before Select Committees are up about 20 per cent. on the figure achieved under the previous Government. I hope that that proves our good faith and seriousness.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) asked about carry-over. He hoped that the Government would always announce at an early stage their intention to carry over a Bill. I draw his attention to paragraph 102(b) of the Committee's first report on the legislative process, which states:
In drawing up detailed proposals the appropriate authorities should consider the need to ensure … the identification by the Government as early as possible of any Bill it wished to be subject to a carry-over procedure.
We want to do that. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend mentioned the need for change in the dress of people in the Chamber. Personally, I tend to agree. We could certainly make changes as far as wigs are concerned, although the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) about getting back at the Clerks opened up a dimension I had not previously considered; I may review my opinion in that light.
The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) expressed his reservations forcefully in the Committee. Interventions have dealt with his points, and I hope that he sees that a wide spectrum of opinion disagrees with him. Many people believe that having a time limit will increase the rights of Members to participate in debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich has been an hon. Friend for many years. She was as open as we would expect her to be about her views on modernisation in general. To sum them up, she is agin it. She is quite open about that, and she is right to emphasise our individual responsibility for knowing the Standing Orders and the procedure. She was right to say that, over the past few years, fewer people have come to terms with the Standing Orders and the influence that they can have. I think that she is wrong to feel that the measures that we are suggesting are dangerous and that curtailing speeches is automatically dangerous. We are proposing sensible ideas which will help the quality of legislation.
The packages proposed both in the previous reports and in the ones that we are considering today are intended to improve the quality of legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) made that point very well. He is not a member of the Committee, but he seemed to show as much knowledge of our reports and even our deliberations as those who are members. He made a considered and positive contribution. If he had been a fly on the wall during some of our discussions, he could not have argued more effectively. He was right to point out the way in which the parliamentary year is concentrated, with lots of Second Readings together and lots of Committee work together. Soon, we might have lots of Lords amendments to consider, which will make it difficult to plan June and July.
Many hon. Members want better planning. No doubt in the next few weeks they will be asking me to plan ahead in a way that the parliamentary programme does not always make possible. My hon. Friend also made a valid point when referring to the earlier report, about the value


of pre-legislative scrutiny, which can save time later if problems are dealt with at the appropriate stage. He and others made points about private Members' Bills, which the Committee will want to consider as soon as is practical.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), who chairs the Select Committee on Information, made points that will be very welcome indeed to members of the Modernisation Committee, who were slightly alarmed at the initial reaction of his Committee to our proposals. The Information Committee thought that there might be significant difficulties with what I hope are simple measures, such as getting the names of constituencies on the annunciators. I am glad that we are likely to be able to make more rapid progress than was at first thought and I congratulate him on making that clear to the House and encouraging us in that way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes) reminded us of our manifesto commitments and said that it was not merely new Members who were pressing for change. It is important to remember that. We said that one of our purposes was to make Parliament more effective and more efficient. Some people who oppose modernisation think that if we make Parliament more efficient we are, by definition, making it less effective. I reject that approach. I think that the two can go together. I am glad that she was able to welcome so much of the report, although I can understand why she wanted us to go further and to consider the parliamentary timetable. As I said, that is one of the matters that we will be moving on to in the near future.
The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) said that he liked interventions. He had some reservations about the timing of speeches, but his positive suggestions about the clock, the countdown and names of constituencies being visible to those sitting in the Chamber were constructive. Perhaps we can consider the suggestions further. I should like to pick him up on one other point he made about electronic voting—the fact that it might destroy the Lobby system. Members of the Committee were keen to maintain the Aye and the No Lobbies, whichever method of recording the vote within the Lobby was used. In the survey, some people thought that electronic voting might be the end of the Lobbies; that was a factor.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley drew on his experience of many years in the House to talk about the need for longer-term programming than one parliamentary year. I have some sympathy with his desire to have a more paced Parliament rather than merely parliamentary Sessions. That has some attractions, as does his suggestion that we ought to have 12 months or possibly longer—a fixed period—in which to pass any piece of legislation. The Committee has not considered that, but it is an interesting suggestion.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) took issue with his colleague the hon. Member for North Cornwall. I resist the temptation to draw obvious conclusions. He rightly said that accountability was a day-to-day matter. I do not think that the hon. Member for Poole was suggesting anything else. When he talked about the consequences of a general election, I do not think that he thought that that absolved us of the

day-to-day responsibility to ensure that the Government are held to account. I do not think that the two are contradictory. There should be no problem.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove mentioned that poor legislation had been passed both when there was consensus and when there was confrontation. That gives me the opportunity to make what I hope will become an important comparison that will help prove that the suggested changes are worth while and improve the quality of legislation. He said that the Child Support Agency was an example of faulty legislation produced with consensus, as everyone here knows. As was pointed out, it would have been even worse had we had a timetable.
My solution is the one that I mentioned nearly a year ago in our first debate on modernisation. If the CSA proposals had been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, I do not think that the legislation would have reached the statute book in that form. We might have had a CSA that worked from the beginning. We are learning from the mistakes of the past. The Government will publish next week the draft Bill on pension sharing. The Social Security Select Committee has already made arrangements to consider it. The measure is similar in that there is genuine agreement that something should be done about pension sharing, just as there was about doing something about absent parents. I think that by allowing pre-legislative scrutiny and taking account of that and of the views of outside bodies, we are more likely to get the legislation right in the end. I hope that the changes will be useful in that respect.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove went on to discuss demands for debates on the Floor on issues that get squeezed such as Select Committee reports, Law Commission Bills or Adjournment debates. We both know that the Committee is soon to discuss whether we can come up mechanisms to assist in that respect.

Mrs. Dunwoody: My right hon. Friend will remember that I raised the question of carrying over legislation and said that as long as it is clear that the procedure is used for non-contentious legislation, and is carefully set out in a way that will not allow any Government to use it to steamroller through even more contentious and difficult issues, it may be acceptable. She has not chosen to give that undertaking.

Mrs. Taylor: I specifically gave that assurance right at the start. What is more, that assurance is in the third report. The conditions that will apply to the use of carry-over are absolutely clear and unequivocal. I do not think that the House of Lords would be willing to accept Bills that were carried over had we not abided by the assurances that I gave when I opened this debate.

Mr. Shepherd: It is clear that the Opposition has the absolute right to prevent carry-over, which is why it has to be done by agreement. Opposition Members can stop-carry over; is that not so?

Mrs. Taylor: To reiterate, the Bills that should be eligible for carry over will be, first, those that have not completed their passage through the House in which they originated; secondly, only those for which there is a specific ad hoc motion; and, thirdly, those whose


eligibility for carry-over has been agreed through the usual channels, which was one of the conditions I laid out at the beginning of the debate. That shows what sort of Bill we are dealing with in respect of carry-over.
I thought that the deputy shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), was going to make my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover an even better offer than he had already received this evening. My hon. Friend has been offered the top hat and an opportunity to be made a member of the Privy Council, but when the hon. Gentleman pointed out that, after 28 years on the Back Benches, he had got on to the Front Bench, I thought that he was going to offer my hon. Friend a place on the Front Bench—[HON. MEMBERS: "Come over."]—our Front Bench, that is. We live in hope of that happening some day.
The hon. Member for South Staffordshire spoke about the early days of the Modernisation Committee, when he was a valued member of it, before he had to leave to serve on another Committee of the House. He laid down some reasonable tests that he thought should be applied to any changes, which were well taken. I appreciate his comments about the way in which the Committee has gone about its business. He said that the real test was: would the Modernisation Committee changes make the House more effective? Only time will tell, but I think that the changes make a positive contribution. If more Members can speak in debates, that will be helpful, because people will feel that it is worth staying in the Chamber. If there is injury time for interventions, that will make our debates more lively, which will also be helpful.
I am grateful for the support given to me by the hon. Gentleman when he was on the Modernisation Committee and by the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), who is just leaving the Committee. It is on that basis that I welcome the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire.
The hon. Member for South Staffordshire spoke about the public's perception of the House and the fact that empty green-leather Benches do not provide a good image. That is a problem, as is the image at Prime Minister's Question Time, but we have a responsibility to ensure that more people know the totality of the work of the House of Commons, because those images—first, when there are few, if any, hon. Members listening to a debate and, secondly, the hothouse of Prime Minister's Question Time—are the extremes, whereas the vast majority of a Member's time is spent somewhere in between. Much of a Member of Parliament's time is spent on Committees and one of the things that the Modernisation Committee is trying to do is to ensure that the different aspects of the work of a Member of Parliament are given proper weight and regard.
The hon. Gentleman finished by advising us to make haste slowly. I do not think that we have been making haste rapidly—indeed, there is a sense that I have been too patient in my role as the Chair of the Committee. I have been extremely tolerant on many occasions, but it is important that we make changes that are acceptable to those on both sides of the House. That is what I have endeavoured to achieve in the Committee, but I realise that there is scope for more change. The report that we will publish shortly on the scrutiny of European legislation will be important; and the whole House will welcome the fact that the Committee is soon to consider the parliamentary year and related matters in terms of the

opportunities for debate. I hope that we can come up with even more constructive, and perhaps radical, suggestions that will also be acceptable to the House. For this evening, I commend the motions to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House approves the Third and Fourth Reports from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons on Carry-over of Public Bills and Conduct in the Chamber (HC 543 and 600).

Orders of the Day — SHORT SPEECHES

Ordered,
That Standing Order No. 47 (Short speeches) be amended, as follows:

Line 1, after 'at', insert 'or before';
Line 4, leave out 'for not more than ten minutes';
Line 6, after 'debate', insert 'for no longer than any period she may specify (which shall not be less than eight minutes)';
Line 11, leave out 'ten minutes' and insert 'that period';
Line 12, at end, add—
'Provided that, in calculating that period, the Speaker may disregard the time taken by interventions'.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Orders of the Day — SUSPENSION OF MEMBERS

Ordered,
That—

(1) the following Standing Order (Suspension of salary of Members suspended) be made:

`The salary of a Member suspended from the service of the House shall be withheld for the duration of his suspension.';
(2) Standing Order No. 45 (Members suspended, &c., to withdraw from precincts) be amended, as follows:

Line 3, leave out from 'House' to 'shall' in line 4;
Line 5, leave out from 'House' to the end of line 8; and
(3) paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 44 (Order in debate) be transferred to the end of Standing Order No. 45.—[[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Orders of the Day — WITHDRAWAL OF STRANGERS FROM HOUSE

Ordered,
That Standing Order No. 163 (Withdrawal of strangers from House) be amended, as follows:

Line 2, leave out from the word 'Member' to the word 'and' in line 5 and insert the words 'moves "That the House sit in private" the Speaker or the chairman shall forthwith put the question "That the House sit in private" `.
Line 7, at the end insert the words 'but such a Motion may be made no more than once in any sitting'.
Line 10, leave out the word 'strangers' and insert the words `those other than Members or officers'.
Line 11, leave out the words 'that strangers do withdraw' and insert the words 'under paragraph (1) of this order.'.—[[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Orders of the Day — PETITION

Green Belt Development

Mr. Oliver Heald: I am pleased to have the opportunity to present the petition of 1,000 of my constituents, led by Mrs. Brenda Ball, who are concerned about plans to build in the countryside, particularly in the neighbouring seat of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley). Those plans will involve the building of 10,000 houses in the green belt. My constituents wanted to show solidarity with their near neighbours in expressing their concern.
Although the wording of the petition does not say so, there is a deeply felt sense of outrage in the north of Hertfordshire at the decision of the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions not to intervene to save the green belt in our county. It says:
The Petition of the residents of the North East Hertfordshire constituency declares that we are concerned about the decisions to sanction plans for new development throughout the countryside. The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to ensure that more homes are built in city areas, instead of the countryside or Green Belt, to breathe new life into our cities and to protect valuable countryside for future generations.
And the Petitioners remain etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Hertfordshire Structure Plan

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Mr. Peter Lilley: I am grateful for the opportunity to debate proposals to alter Hertfordshire's structure plan so that it is possible to build 10,000 houses in the green belt in my constituency.
Throughout my parliamentary career, I have been a passionate defender of the green belt. I raised the issue in my maiden speech. I have always believed that it is essential to defend the sanctity of the green belt to maintain the environment and character of my constituency. At public inquiries, I have opposed plans to build on green belt land in my constituency.
I am pleased to say that in the past 15 years in which I have had the privilege to represent a Hertfordshire seat, there has been no significant incursion into the green belt in the area that I represent. Several proposals to do so have been successfully seen off, but not one acre has been lost.
I have invariably had cross-party support in standing up for the green belt, and I have usually had the local authorities on my side, so I am appalled that Hertfordshire county council, through its structure plan, proposes to build 10,000 houses in the green belt on nearly 2,000 acres in my constituency. I was horrified when that plan was endorsed by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
I make it absolutely clear to the House that I am not talking simply about building on a green-field site. The plan involves building within the green belt itself; in short, on land that is most safeguarded against such developments. As far as I can discover, the proposal would be the largest incursion into the green belt in living memory, so it is not only a local, but a national, issue.
Locally, the opposition to the plan is overwhelming, as my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) has said. In a single morning, 3,500 people signed the petition in the marketplace in Hitchin in my constituency. Many thousands more have done so since. The sheer volume of papers containing the names of people who have signed the petition is apparent to the House.
The site involved is especially beautiful. Few people live in it. It is a purely rural area, but it is much cherished by people in the rest of the constituency. How deeply it is cherished was brought home to me by an especially poignant ceremony, in which I participated, on the borders of the area concerned. I was invited to unveil a new footpath map in the village of St. Ippollitts. The map, which is especially beautiful, illustrates the terrain, the flora and fauna of the area, as well as showing the footpaths covering the area between St. Ippollitts and Langley. Each footpath is maintained and cared for by a team of volunteers.
Tragically, only two months after the map was unveiled, a large part of the area that it shows is to be bulldozed and covered with concrete. One of the most beautiful stretches of countryside will become a high-profile housing estate, and all the care and devotion that people have put into maintaining that area of countryside in its natural beauty are to be laid to waste.
This is a national, as well as a local, issue. Planning proceeds by precedent, so the decision to allow building on that scale in such a location will be potent ammunition for those wishing to develop in green belt areas elsewhere in the countryside. Green belt status will have been devalued by that dangerous decision and the appalling precedent that it sets.
The legal basis for the green belt is spelt out clearly in planning policy guidance note 2, issued in 1995. It spells out five purposes for the green belt. The first is


to check unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas".
The green belt round Stevenage has achieved precisely that, by ensuring that Stevenage had a clear-cut western boundary along the motorway, to the west of which was green belt land; but with this precedent to overrule that green belt protection, how can urban sprawl be contained elsewhere in the country around towns with even less defensible boundaries?
The second purpose of green belts laid down in PPG2 is
to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another.
In this case, the green belt has, above all, prevented Stevenage merging into Hitchin. In practice, the new settlement, although said to be west of Stevenage, is divided from Stevenage by a motorway, an industrial zone and a railway, so the inhabitants will naturally gravitate to Hitchin, and the tendency will be for that settlement to expand toward Hitchin and undermine the thin stretch of remaining green belt between itself and Hitchin. In any case, the precedent has been created that green belts elsewhere in the country cannot be relied on to separate two closely adjoining towns.
The third purpose of green belts laid down in PPG2 is
to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment".
That the green belt has done, for the best part of 50 years in this part of the country, but now a couple of thousand beautiful acres are being abandoned. With that precedent, why should any countryside elsewhere be sacrosanct as a result of green belt protection?
The fourth purpose of green belts laid down in PPG2 is
to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns.
Hitchin is an historic market town—a beautiful one. It has retained its character and setting precisely because the green belt has restricted its size and kept Stevenage at bay. But with this precedent, how can any historic town be kept safe by relying on the green belt?
The fifth and final purpose laid down for green belts in PPG2 is
to assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
It is always easier, and often cheaper, to build on green-field sites than to recycle urban land. While the green belt protected the countryside, planners and developers had to focus on previously built-up land, and that often meant finding many small sites, and it meant that planners had to agree to changes, for example, from employment use to building use. Why should they bother, once this precedent has established, since the easy and profitable solution of building on green-belt land is available if one pushes hard enough? In short, this decision offends every single purpose for which green-belt status was established.
I welcome the presence in the Chamber tonight, not only of my hon. Friends, but of the hon. Members for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard) and for Hemel Hempstead

(Mr. McWalter), both of whom I had the privilege of defeating in previous elections. I am sure that they will reflect the concerns of their constituents about the damage that has been done to the sanctity of the green belt that has protected the character of their constituencies as faithfully as it protects the new boundaries of my constituency.
Hon. Members can imagine my delight when, after building was proposed in the area, I persuaded my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to launch the Conservative countryside campaign on that very site west of Stevenage in my constituency on 2 February this year. I was even more pleased when it seemed that that campaign had persuaded the Government to do a U-turn on the issue of developing in the countryside and on green-belt sites. The Deputy Prime Minister signalled his intention to restore the 60 per cent. target for building in built-up areas upon which we had consulted and which we had included in our manifesto. He declared his determination to protect the countryside.
I welcomed the Deputy Prime Minister's apparent change of heart, as did my hon. Friends. Unfortunately, it soon became clear that, although the rhetoric had changed, the substance of policy had not. West of Stevenage was the litmus test and, on that test, the Government resolutely refused to turn blue. The Deputy Prime Minister reaffirmed his consent for the biggest incursion into the green belt since the new towns were established.
Several reasons have been given for sticking to that decision despite the Government's alleged change of policy. When I asked the Deputy Prime Minister how he could claim that the Government's policy had changed if he was not prepared to alter his position on that key decision regarding the biggest and worst incursion into the green belt since the war, he replied that it was a question of local democracy. He claimed that all the local authorities were in favour of the decision. That is simply incorrect. The decision affects land in North Hertfordshire district council area and, although the council is Labour controlled, it resolutely opposes the decision.
It is true that Hertfordshire county council has led the proposal for building on the site, but I believe that that decision is a travesty of local democracy rather than a reflection of it. The county council is controlled by a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition. It has formed a joint party called the administration group, which has a majority of just one over the Conservatives. The group knew that it could not get a decision this unpopular through the full council without risking its defeat by one of its members siding with the Conservative opposition. So it took the decision in a planning committee which was packed with trustees, tightly whipped.
The decision was taken by just 14 council members out of 77, and only 14 county councillors supported the final plan. When the Conservative opposition put down a motion in full council that the issue should be considered by the full council before it went ahead, the ruling Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition changed the standing orders so that it could throw out the motion, even though a majority of county councillors voted in favour of that decision being taken by the full council. It is a travesty of democracy and it is appalling that the Deputy Prime Minister should have cited local democracy as a reason to allow the green belt to be built on.
It is sad that no Liberal Democrat Members are present. They have claimed often enough to be supporters of the environment and to be a green party. Taking them at their word, I wrote to the Leader of the Liberal party asking him to urge his supporters on Hertfordshire county council to abandon their anti-democratic and anti-environmental support of the plan to build on the green belt. He has never replied. I have subsequently spoken to him and he said that he had no intention of replying and that it was beneath his dignity to involve himself in this, the most important decision affecting the future of the green belt and the whole country since the war. Far from being a matter for local democracy, it has been an abuse of local democracy by those running Hertfordshire county council.
The Government's second line of defence was to argue that, although a couple of thousand acres of green belt land have been lost in the front line, they have designated an even larger area of countryside as green belt in the rear. That is fatuous. There is no defence at all if the green belt is mobile. It is meant to be rigid. It is effective only if it is rigid. If it simply moves back like a piece of elastic every time there is pressure on it, it is of no use in preventing the encroachment of urban areas on the countryside.
The third justification is that the west of Stevenage development would be particularly sustainable in transport terms because it is near a railway and an existing town. On that basis, any town with a railway is not safe from expansion into the surrounding green belt. In any case, virtually every town in the west of Hertfordshire has good railways and very few people are far from those railway centres. In my constituency, it is possible to be a maximum of only six miles distant from a railway station.
The fourth justification is that no alternative locations are available on which to build. The inquiry considered a few alternative large sites and it rather strangely turned down proposals for building a similar development on a non-green belt site elsewhere in the county. However, it gave no consideration at all to building on the largest area of recyclable land, the former Hatfield airfield which has recently been closed following the move of British Aerospace to the north.
It is in any case nonsense to suppose that it is essential to find large sites in order to meet the target for building new homes in the county. The target for the 20-year period between 1991 and 2011 is set at 65,000 houses. Already, some six or seven years into the period, 44,000 houses have been built or allocated planning permission. Almost all of that has been achieved by finding many small sites, by urban regeneration and by a limited amount of peripheral development. A further 21,000 houses are required over the remaining period, which is almost twice as long as the part that has elapsed.
The structure plan states:
There is a fair prospect of meeting the whole of that extra requirement in the same manner
as for the first 44,000 houses, by urban regeneration and limited peripheral development. It continues:
However, against the possibility of this not proving practicable, strategic provision is made on a contingency basis for up to 6,000 dwellings to be located on Green Field sites … of which 5,000 are at Stevenage (with a prospect of 5,000 more after 2011).

On the council's own admission, the incursion into the green belt may not be necessary to meet the council's targets. It would be extraordinary if that beautiful stretch of countryside were sacrificed—which would create a damaging precedent for the country as a whole—and it all turned out to have been unnecessary.
The final blow to the insistence of the Government and the county council that it was all necessary to meet the targets was dealt this week by Serplan itself. On 3 June, it issued a press release giving revised forecasts for the period between 1991 and 2016, stating:
The figures are less than the Government's household projections for the same period. That is because national research now shows that 40 to 50 per cent. of the projected extra single person households may not form without some sort of subsidy. The evidence suggests that even if the Government commits extra resources to giving people a home, 20 to 25 per cent. fewer single person households will form than previously projected.
The whole basis of the original targets is now undermined by the planning body that does the forecasting on which the Government have relied.
Earlier this year, I—along with many of my hon. Friends who represent Hertfordshire—went to see the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning. We were grateful to him for allowing us time to express our concerns, and our passionate opposition to what is proposed for the area west of Stevenage. He said that the Government had genuinely changed their policy—that they now wanted more development outside the south-east and less within it. He said that they were moving from "predict and provide" to a more flexible system, and that they would be reviewing previous predictions. All that was music to our ears; yet the Minister still insisted that the decision should not be revised or reconsidered in the light of the policy changes that he proposed.
If the Government are raising the national average target for the amount of building on recycled land from 50 to 60 per cent., that must mean scaling down plans to build on green-field sites. If the Government are to reduce the amount of building on green-field sites, where will the reductions be made? Why are the Government not beginning by axing plans to build on the green belt—particularly this most offensive and largest plan? If they are genuinely keen for less building to take place on green-field sites and more on recycled land, where will the reduction take place, and why will it not be made in the area to which I refer?
I have a further question. If more powers are being devolved to the regions and to Serplan, which now says that the requirement for houses in the south-east is less than the Government predicted, why are the regions not being given authority—indeed, encouraged—to reflect that decentralised planning decision in the way that the new planning structures were said to allow? If the Government are serious about their proposals to shift more housing development out of the south-east and up to the north, and to less populous parts of the country, why is that not yet being reflected in decisions such as that involving Hertfordshire county council? Above all, how can the Government say that the policy has changed if they will not alter the single most offensive planning decision that they have allowed: the decision to build 10,000 houses on green-belt land in my constituency?
If the Government are prepared to reverse that decision, they will gain the respect and sympathy of people not just in Hertfordshire, but throughout the country who are


concerned at the damage that this decision will do to the sanctity of the green belt. If the Government are not, their credit will be zero among all those who care for the environment and believe that it can be satisfactorily maintained only if we uphold the sanctity of the green belt.

Mr. Oliver Heald: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Does the hon. Gentleman have permission of the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) to speak in the debate?

Mr. Heald: I certainly do.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: And that of the Minister?

Mr. Heald: I have not mentioned it to the Minister. I certainly mentioned it to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) as that bit of extra time was available this evening.
At a rally some six weeks ago, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) and I stood shoulder to shoulder on this issue, in support of the points that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden has made. My right hon. Friend has been fighting tigerishly to defend—[Interruption.] Tigerishly is the right word. He is fighting fiercely to protect—

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Mr. Heald: My right hon. Friend has been fighting fiercely to protect our part of Hertfordshire. The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead knows the area well, too. He was a North Hertfordshire district councillor in Letchworth. He knows how important it is to Letchworth that it has the agricultural belt around it and the green belt beside it. He knows, as I and my right hon. Friend do, that it is important in Hertfordshire that the green belt should not be a flexible thing that can be tossed aside and an area where developments can occur in huge numbers.
There is no doubt about the demand. People could build as many houses as they liked in Hertfordshire and they would sell them. Buyers would pour over the borders from Bedfordshire, Essex and come up from London because Hertfordshire is a wonderful place in which to live, but, in doing so, they would destroy its character. That is why this proposal has been strongly opposed not just in Hitchin and Harpenden—although, my goodness, it has been opposed there—but in Letchworth, where people care about the environment, and in other places in my constituency.
The county has a lot of green belt. It has protected itself through the green belt; I see Labour Members nodding. Not just I and the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead, but the leader of North Hertfordshire district council, a Labour member, as my right hon. Friend mentioned, and the chairman of the council have said that this will not do.
I bitterly regret the fact that the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions was not prepared to budge. He let down not just Conservative

supporters of the green belt, but everyone in that part of Hertfordshire: Labour, Liberal and all those individual people—

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): Nonsense.

Mr. Heald: The Minister says, "Nonsense," and I noticed that he was laughing earlier. People in north Hertfordshire are not laughing. They think that this is an absolute disgrace and a decision which he should reverse. If he and Secretary of State mean what they say, they must act, not just give us words. It is time that this decision was reversed. The Minister should get on his feet and actually do something for the environment, rather than just talk, talk, talk, which is what Labour does.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I am grateful to have the opportunity to respond on this subject, as it enables me to outline the Government's policy as it relates to the new Hertfordshire structure plan and to remind the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley)—and the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), who did not have the courtesy to inform me that he intended to speak—of the record of the previous Government, whom they supported. Their remarks indicate an astonishing degree of selective amnesia about the performance of that Government on decisions on the green belt. I shall be pleased to remind them about the Conservative Government's record.
I shall start by outlining the procedures; it is right that the House should be aware of them. Structure plans were introduced by the Town and Country Planning Act 1968 and carried forward into section 32 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which requires county councils to prepare structure plans for their areas. Planning policy guidance for structure plans is set in PPG 12, entitled "Development Plans and Regional Planning Guidance", which was published in 1992. It requires structure plans to set out broad proposals for housing, employment, transportation and other strategic matters and their distribution between districts.
Structure plans do not identify specific sites—that is the preserve of local plans—but they can identify strategic allocations for major development. When applied to housing, a strategic allocation is generally taken as being 1,000 or more dwellings.
Structure plans must have regard to regional planning guidance, which is non-statutory advice published by the Secretary of State—in consultation with standing conferences formed by local authorities—to guide the regional distribution of development and housing. It is not part of the role of RPGs to specify the location of new development. Later in my speech, I shall deal with our proposed changes to the system for preparing regional planning guidance. Hertfordshire is guided by regional planning guidance for the south-east, which is in RPG 9.
Structure plans are prepared and owned by county councils. The Secretary of State has a reserve power, under section 35(2) of the 1990 Act, to direct modifications to a structure plan. He exercises that power,


very sparingly, to ensure that plans do not depart from national or regional planning guidance without very strong justification. For structure plans, the power has been used only six times since 1993—to direct the modification of plans for Suffolk, Surrey, Berkshire, Kent, Bedfordshire and West Sussex. All except the last of those were made by the previous Administration, and the last four arose from the failure of the councils to propose adequate housing provision.
As hon. Members will know, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister recently announced our new approach to planning for housing, "Planning for the Communities of the Future". I am well aware that several hon. Members are concerned about how Hertfordshire's plan squares with that and with policy for the green belt and reuse of brown-field sites. I know that hon. Members are concerned about protecting the green belt and the countryside; the Government are also concerned about it. We remain fully committed to their protection.
Protection of the countryside has always been a planning priority. Green belt policy is guided by planning policy guidance note 2, "Green Belts", which was published in 1994. The PPG note makes it quite clear that—as has always been the case—green belt boundaries can be changed by the development plan only if "exceptional circumstances" exist.
In recent years, both the current Government and the previous Administration have had to allow releases of green belt land for development. There is nothing new about that process. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning recently met the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden and other hon. Members, told them that the previous Administration had allowed releases of green belt land for housing and said that we would provide some examples.
The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden will undoubtedly be interested in those examples. They are as follows: 46 hectares in Birmingham, 158 hectares in Broxbourne, 137 hectares in Dartford and 260 hectares in Solihull. In case Conservative Members think that that is only some dim and distant recollection, I should remind them that, in the final year of the previous Conservatives Administration, they released, on appeal, 500 hectares of green belt land for development. In one of the three sites affected, they acted directly against the recommendation of the inspector, who recommended refusal.
The suggestion made by the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden and other Conservative Members that the previous Government's record on the green belt was somehow magnificent and that the current Government are acting improperly is erroneous. It is an extraordinary statement of hypocrisy on the right hon. Gentleman's part.

Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out those decisions. He should therefore be able to confirm that the Government's single decision in Hertfordshire will have a greater effect than the effect of all those decisions he has listed put together.

Mr. Raynsford: The right hon. Gentleman has again missed the point. The fact is that—in that one case, in the last year of the previous Government—500 hectares were

affected. He will also have heard me mention 260 hectares in Solihull, 137 hectares in Dartford and 158 hectares in Broxbourne. Perhaps he cannot do his mathematics. Perhaps that is why has recently been transferred from his previous shadow job to his current one.

Mr. Kerry Pollard: I am not sure that the House is aware that Broxbourne is in Hertfordshire. The previous Administration gave away a great swathe of green belt in that decision, but the Conservatives are now claiming to be the great friends of the green belt. That is hypocrisy.

Mr. Raynsford: I agree with my hon. Friend.
The important point is that land can be taken from the green belt only if opportunities for development in urban areas and beyond the green belt have been fully considered. Only if insufficient land is available from those sources can green belt alterations be countenanced.

Mr. Heald: The Minister will know that the site that we are talking about is 2,000 acres. I do not know how many acres he thinks there are to the hectare, but on the mathematics that I employ my right hon. Friend's figure is right. The Minister is talking about tiny amounts in comparison with the huge scheme in Hertfordshire. How many acres does the Minister say there are to the hectare?

Mr. Raynsford: The site that the hon. Gentleman is referring to is 800 hectares. That is smaller than the combined sites that I have described. If the hon. Gentleman wants, I can list other sites released by the previous Government on appeal. Let us consider some, because perhaps he would benefit from hearing them. In June 1994, 24 hectares were released for a corporate headquarters and residential accommodation in St. Helens. In March 1993, 167 hectares were released for a business park in Ashton-under-Lyne. In the same month, 30 hectares were released for industrial development in Cheadle. The recommendation of the inspector, who was trying to safeguard the green belt, was overruled. In May 1993, 56 hectares were released for a business park in Dartford.
The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden is showing the House why he was transferred from being shadow Chancellor, because he cannot add up. If he adds up the developments that I have mentioned, he will realise that they amount to substantially more green belt than the site that he is talking about. I shall spare him the embarrassment of listing the many other examples of green belt sites that were released for development by the previous Government. The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends clearly do not wish to be reminded of those uncomfortable facts.
"Planning for the Communities of the Future" highlights the need to develop sustainable communities. Green belts may divert development into open countryside beyond them—land that may be of high environmental value. Development in such areas can promote unsustainable transport demands. In exceptional circumstances, releasing some green belt for development can enable more sustainable solutions to be realised, provided—I emphasise this point again—all the options have been fully considered.
The reuse of previously developed land is another important issue. The previous Administration's target, set out in the 1996 Green Paper "Household Growth: Where Shall We Live?" was that
by 2005, half of all new housing should be built on re-used sites.
"Planning for the Communities of the Future" increases that target to 60 per cent. over the next 10 years. We expect regional planning guidance to set targets to achieve that. We have commissioned the Local Government Association and English Partnerships to set up a database of previously developed land. That will help councils and developers to identify land available for reuse and target it for redevelopment. The process carried out in Hertfordshire is similar to our approach and shows that it will work.
"Planning for the Communities of the Future" also sets out our approach to planning for the housing provision implied by the 1992-based population projections up to 2016 and for future projections. We are determined to get away from predict and provide and give local councils and communities more ownership of the figures and the proposals to meet them. We have set out a new system for defining housing provision through revised arrangements for the preparation of regional planning guidance.
In future, regional planning conferences will work with the Government offices for the regions, business, other regional stakeholders and the new regional development agencies to produce draft regional guidance, including proposals for future housing provision. That will be tested at a public examination and subject to environmental appraisal. Targets will be included to measure the success of the strategy and to trigger subsequent formal review of the guidance. That new approach will be used in preparation of a revision of RPG9, to be published in draft later this year, which will roll housing figures forward to 2016.
In answer to the specific question asked by the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden, there will be an opportunity for a further appraisal of Hertfordshire household requirements in the context of the revised RPG9. That will be subject to the procedure I have described but based on forthcoming household projection figures. It is wrong at this stage to pre-empt that. He should not draw any conclusions from the Serplan figures, which were generalised for the south-east and, of course, have not had the benefit of any testing by an examination in public.
In the meantime, it is important that there should be an orderly transition from the old arrangements to the new ones, so development plans in preparation must have regard to existing regional planning guidance. I remind the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden that existing regional planning guidance in respect of Hertfordshire—RPG9—was produced by the Government he supported.
The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden is well aware of the lengthy process by which the Hertfordshire structure plan was prepared. If other hon. Members want details of it, we can supply them. The essence of the matter is that Hertfordshire county council initially sought to provide all new housing allocations on previously developed land. That was shown to be too ambitious and unachievable—not least because the area does not contain many of the older industrial sites that are

common in some parts of the country, which are the most obvious sites for such development. The county came very reluctantly to the conclusion that green-field releases were unavoidable. Hence, it proposed major development west of the A1M near Stevenage, and a smaller, but still significant, proposal at Hemel Hempstead. That was thoroughly tested at an examination in public before an independent panel, which endorsed the strategy.
Early this year, it fell to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister to consider whether he should direct any modifications to the plan. He concluded that he should not, because up-to-date information showed that the proportion of new housing on previously used land would be close to our new target of 60 per cent., that development west of the AIM near Stevenage and development near Hemel Hempstead offered the most sustainable solution, and that the use of green belt land had therefore been justified.
The council subsequently asked my right hon. Friend to consider reducing the county's RPG9 dwelling total by an unspecified amount. The Deputy Prime Minister replied on 23 April, indicating that there is nothing in "Planning for the Communities of the Future" to justify changing the county's housing figure, for reasons that I have explained. Copies of the council's letter and my right hon. Friend's reply are available. The plan was therefore adopted by Hertfordshire county council on 30 April. Not too much significance should be attached to the description of the process that the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden gave. It is part of the standard procedure of delegation in county councils. Decisions on such matters are taken by their planning committees and delegated as a matter of course. That is what happened in Hertfordshire.
The Hertfordshire structure plan was very thoroughly—one could say painfully—prepared and tested. The county council came only reluctantly to the view that development to the west of the A1M near Stevenage and at Hemel Hempstead was necessary. The council afforded extensive opportunities for the public to object to the plan and sought energetically and innovatively to, comply with regional planning guidance, green belt policy and sustainable development principles.
I should emphasise three final points. First, the council considered that the creation of a sustainable community west of the A1M near Stevenage justified taking land from the green belt, and, on balance, we agreed. Secondly, Hertfordshire is set to meet our requirement for development on previously used land. The latest information shows that the proportion could reach 68 per cent. Thirdly, development in the county must be guided by the extant regional planning guidance. That is why my right hon. Friend declined to vary Hertfordshire's housing figure.
I should stress that Hertfordshire also has proposals to increase the total area of green belt in the county by an amount substantially larger than the area that it proposes to take for development. The key purpose behind it all is to enhance the principles of sustainability by ensuring that development occurs where it is nearest to transport links and employment opportunities, thus reducing the need for travel and for people to depend on a motor car. That will reduce all the problems associated with indiscriminate development in rural areas that would have been the


inevitable consequence if it had not been decided to focus on a specific area where sustainable development was achievable.

Mr. Heald: Does the Minister not appreciate that in the northern part of Hertfordshire, the countryside is protected in two ways? Part of it is protected as prime agricultural land and the other part is protected because it is green belt. It is the easiest thing in the world to say, "We'll have a bit of flexibility here and take a bit of land out of the green belt and allow development on it, but then we'll add a bit more agricultural land to the green belt." One could go on like that for ever and a day, but the fact is that we would end up with more concrete and more houses. The people of north Hertfordshire do not want that.

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman seems to ignore the fact that the area of green belt in the county has substantially increased and will increase further.

Mr. Heald: What use is that?

Mr. Raynsford: Therefore his logic is entirely wrong.

Mr. Heald: What about the countryside?

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman has also ignored the way in which the county council has approached the issue, considering thoughtfully and carefully all the issues of sustainability—a concept with which he clearly has difficulty.

Mr. Pollard: Is the Minister aware that in the south-west quadrant of Hertfordshire—the area that I represent—we have more or less wall-to-wall housing and are allowing development on hospital sites? Should not other parts of Hertfordshire—the areas that we are talking about tonight—bear their fair share of the increased demand for housing?

Mr. Heald: We do not want to end up like you.

Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend made a perfectly valid remark and that reply from the hon. Member for

North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) shows an insensitivity for the concerns of people who live in the same county as him of which he should be heartily ashamed.

Mr. Heald: What the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard) said is true. Some areas in the south-west of the county are very built up. We all appreciate that—but it does not mean that the answer is to make the north of the county so built up that it becomes just the same. That was my point; surely the Minister understands it.

Mr. Raynsford: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is once again missing the point about sustainability—and he is showing a disregard for the interests of people in areas that have been subject to intensive development who want some safeguarding of green land, parks and open spaces in their areas to ensure that they, too, have access to the countryside.
Concern for the countryside is not the unique privilege of one section of the community. It is shared widely by all sections of our community, by people who live in towns as well as people who live in the country. It is the Government's commitment to ensure that we have a policy that pursues the interests of the countryside and protects the countryside and green land for people in all areas, not just those who live in the country.
I reaffirm to the House that the Government remain firmly committed to the protection of the countryside and of green belts. We are the first Government ever to consider land use and transport planning together and to take an integrated approach to sustainable development.
We have said before and will say again that the creation of sustainable communities may, in exceptional circumstances, justify taking land from the green belt. We considered that that was the case with the present proposals for development west of Stevenage and Hemel Hempstead. It is our belief that, in those circumstances, and in view of the proposals to extend the green belt elsewhere by 4,600 hectares, it was not appropriate for my right hon. Friend to intervene in the adoption of the Hertfordshire structure plan.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Ten o'clock.